Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
sonicruiser
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:49 pm

United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.
شما می توانید مردم را تحریم کنید ، اما نمی توانید سبک تحریم را اعمال کنید

You can sanction people, but you can't sanction style
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6193
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:59 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


No...it doesnt.

Yes Florida is a huge market, but not every airline needs to be everything to everyone.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
dstblj52
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:02 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


No...it doesnt.

Yes Florida is a huge market, but not every airline needs to be everything to everyone.

The problem with the florida market is that its a low yielding generally seasonal market its easy to fill planes their sure but its a challenging market to fill at profitable yields because of spirit and frontiers lower casm allows them to get most of the decent sized markets from their and what those two wont touch are allegiant markets
 
tphuang
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:06 pm

There is no question ua has great hubs. They are at prime locations. But due to the competition in these places, their marhgns are never going to be as good as what delta has at msp or Detroit for example. And the other giant weakness in their network is Latin America. They don't fully utilize their Newark hub for that. And anything on the east coast, which is where the majority of population lives, will find Houston too out of the way to connect.

So for any corporate contract that require latam coverage, they are behind the curves. And no, Copa and avianca are not airlines that higher yielding customers want to fly on.

There is no available hub for them to build up on southeast. They would get killed at South Florida with their cost level.

That's why i said, code share with JetBlue at Florida allows them to connect could be a good option. They don't need to worry about lower yield vs aa at Mia. That's for JetBlue to worry about.

On top of that, greater presence at JFK and Bo's will allow them to win over more major corporate clients across the country. JetBlue is not going to be able to compete in that space.

They have really fallen back at lax, a partnership with JetBlue with some kind of slot exchange for lga with JFK slots would allow them to have a presence at JFK. Which they can then offer token JFK transcons presence at. And the new t5 to 7 can become the star alliance terminal at JFK.

Of course they could continue what they are doing. But even with all the success they had, they are still quite a bit off the delta margin numbers. And now with aa joining up with as, it would allow aa to gain certain higher yielding customers that they could not before. A partnership with jetblue would clearly help United position amongst big 3. The question is whether they are willing to help a smaller competitor.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:42 pm

merged data.png
merged data.png
codc10 wrote:
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, and the fact that there are two well-capitalized US startups in the works makes things interesting. David Neeleman and Andrew Levy both have ties to a combined UA/B6 and would be well-positioned to take advantage of mandated divestitures with their forthcoming ventures, regardless of stated missions to stick to "un(der)served markets."

I decided to test what percent of the flights they would run out of the new york area according to this data https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Sel=1, unfortunately, A lot of UAX carriers do not meet the reporting standards and I can't split data for regionals who operate flights for multiple airlines so this data probably sets the base and with 50% of the passager miles, I imagine the government would want fairly substantial concessions probably enough to get them below forty percent in the domestic market. I also did not calculate their ATI partners but those would likely be included in this calculation in the actual court case.
Edit A.net Seems to refuse to attach the picture of my data set, unfortunately
merged data.png
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:03 am

The ironic thing that users are making suggestions that UA needs to step it up at LAX, FLL, & SEA is that UA actually had that real estate at all 3 before Smisek cut them during "Project Quality." Back in 2012-2013 with UA's Gulfstream Partnership, they already had a mini Focus City at FLL and even that got sliced (recall that's when DEN and SFO to FLL were added.) As for CLE, that's another issue but UA got rid of it despite having an extreme 70-80% majority at the airport (think DL at SLC, small city but very loyal audience). Potentially another missed opportunity when AA and DL were expanding domestically at the time.

If UA needs a true hub in the south, I would say beef up IAD more (then go for MCO or FLL but don't screw with RDU.) AA failed having a hub there and it's already a DL Focus City. UA retaliated when DL launched EWR-RDU with LGA-RDU and the latter got cut quickly.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8416
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:36 am

tphuang wrote:

So for any corporate contract that require latam coverage, they are behind the curves. And no, Copa and avianca are not airlines that higher yielding customers want to fly on.

There is no available hub for them to build up on southeast. They would get killed at South Florida with their cost level.

That's why i said, code share with JetBlue at Florida allows them to connect could be a good option. They don't need to worry about lower yield vs aa at Mia. That's for JetBlue to worry about.



Other than name recognition I can't think of any reason why a high yielding customer would avoid Avianca over JetBlue. Avianca have offer a good full service product (hot meals etc in economy) and a real premium cabin, something B6 does not offer on their LatAm flights.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:39 am

Regarding any merger scenario, I don't think it'd be worthwhile to attempt any type of merger after what UA went through with ALPA and AFA last time around.

UA has a load of new and used A/C coming on board over the next few years and that will enable them to fill a lot of holes in their system. They can absorb them into the fleet as they're delivered. Gaining 250+ A/C in a merger overnight in addition to the scheduled deliveries of ordered A/C might be too much to deal with smoothly. Additionally, having separate seniority lists and "my fleet, your fleet" segregation would just open new wounds. United is finally hitting on all cylinders and it could be risky to mess with their current trajectory.

On the other hand, hypothetically, if B6 were to join *A they could keep their own identity much like USAir did as *A members years ago. B6 would have a lot more to gain with *A membership but MileagePlus members would also gain access to territory that would otherwise take UA years and bucketloads of $ to achieve organically. Revenue sharing might be nice for the short-term accounting but creating a much larger portfolio of travel options for FFers might make *A a much more attractive club to be in for many travelers and that would have payoffs for years to come.
 
AaronPGH
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:24 am

I'm a PIT based UA FF. Made that decision about 6 years ago because they're the only one that has nonstops to the main major cities (their hubs), plus AC to the major Canadian cities. I'm not sure what I could realistically ask of them, beyond bringing their non-stop to LAX back. They should just keep aiming to connect as many cities to as many of their great hubs as possible, which seems to be their plan. They should avoid stepping into this AA/DL cat fight.

Neither DL or AA really offer a compelling range of nonstop cities to a market like Pittsburgh.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:29 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
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.


Perhaps there are few city pairs in the southeast where they could attempt some limited point-to-point but I agree their focus will be on hub strength. There's no need to focus on a region where the barrier to entry is high and opportunities are low.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:00 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
tphuang wrote:

So for any corporate contract that require latam coverage, they are behind the curves. And no, Copa and avianca are not airlines that higher yielding customers want to fly on.

There is no available hub for them to build up on southeast. They would get killed at South Florida with their cost level.

That's why i said, code share with JetBlue at Florida allows them to connect could be a good option. They don't need to worry about lower yield vs aa at Mia. That's for JetBlue to worry about.



Other than name recognition I can't think of any reason why a high yielding customer would avoid Avianca over JetBlue. Avianca have offer a good full service product (hot meals etc in economy) and a real premium cabin, something B6 does not offer on their LatAm flights.


Take a look at how well AV and CM sell out their front of cabin. It's a real struggle. They are always far and way the cheapest on business class flights to South America. Their connection itineraries are dirt cheap. Also, look at how many east coast cities have service to FLL and how many have service to BOG and PTY. Pretty large difference. South Florida is the best place to connect to LATAM for east coast and MCO is the second best place.

As for more premium cabin product to Latam, I think that's going to come in the next few years to the places that really require them like Brazil/EZE/SCL.

N649DL wrote:
If UA needs a true hub in the south, I would say beef up IAD more (then go for MCO or FLL but don't screw with RDU.) AA failed having a hub there and it's already a DL Focus City. UA retaliated when DL launched EWR-RDU with LGA-RDU and the latter got cut quickly.


IAD is not a great place for connection. It's value really is in the surrounding area which is wealthy and the international/transcon option it provides to DC/North Virginia area residents. As a north/south hub, it's costs are too high and gets killed in connectivity vs ATL/CLT.

Again, MCO/FLL doesn't work for someone with cost of UA. Only LCCs can build large scale non-hub operations there.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3625
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:55 am

ordbosewr wrote:
While conventional wisdom would say they need to do something bold to counter this move, my perspective is that they need to stay the course they have. When the MAX issue gets resolve UA will probably have 50+ new aircraft within a year (if the UA fleet thread is accurate). That will help to close the mainline gap they have, but not solve it (yes, some other planes will be retired when these come on board)
UA can't expect to try to acquire anyone. If they try to get B6 into *A I just don't think the regulators will allow codesharing/etc.
It is either B6 or Hawaiian, and I do not think HA does much for UA, so that leaves B6 or build out organically.
My guess is UA stays the path.

I am not convinced that AA and Alaska will be a cakewalk approval from regulators that many here feel it will be, but maybe I am being to narrowly focused.



Ok B6 is not merging. Get over it. And if they did UA would most likeley have to divest of some of their slots at EWR to get approval. They would not weaken EWR to get back to JFK.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:13 am

tphuang wrote:
Again, MCO/FLL doesn't work for someone with cost of UA. Only LCCs can build large scale non-hub operations there.


Delta is pretty big in MCO.

People keep acting like FL is some wasteland of trailer parks and no money. News flash: all the money is fleeing to Florida as fast as the taxes up north keep going up. Florida cannot and will not be ignored anymore.
 
onwFan
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:50 am

There is nothing that UA needs to do. They have the finest international network and a great alliance for its fliers. If there is anything they can do, it is to figure out how to balance their partnerships with Copa, Avianca and Azul. I have a feeling that at least one of them is going to be chipped away from Star - Basically SkyTeam (if it exists in its current form at all) and oneworld will soon be left with no carrier in South America.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:54 am

CobaltScar wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Again, MCO/FLL doesn't work for someone with cost of UA. Only LCCs can build large scale non-hub operations there.


Delta is pretty big in MCO.

People keep acting like FL is some wasteland of trailer parks and no money. News flash: all the money is fleeing to Florida as fast as the taxes up north keep going up. Florida cannot and will not be ignored anymore.

Florida is where aviation yields go to die and most of delta MCO flying is either: hub, partner hub, focus city or south America. Moreover, a large chunk of their MCO presence is their up to 15-17 daily ATL turns which when you consider that ATL has a low CPE (2.58) and generally low CASM because of the high gauge of aircraft being used and its convenient position for flying in and out of Florida. So it can work and it certainly has plenty of volume but like most leisure markets, the ULCC's essentially set the pricing in the market and the legacies simply can't charge all that much more. By the way, Florida has an average net worth below the US average so your claim that all the money is fleeing their seems suspect, but yes Florida tends to receive a large percentage of the retiree population.
 
LH658
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:35 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:42 am

As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.
 
blockski
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:32 pm

tphuang wrote:

N649DL wrote:
If UA needs a true hub in the south, I would say beef up IAD more (then go for MCO or FLL but don't screw with RDU.) AA failed having a hub there and it's already a DL Focus City. UA retaliated when DL launched EWR-RDU with LGA-RDU and the latter got cut quickly.


IAD is not a great place for connection. It's value really is in the surrounding area which is wealthy and the international/transcon option it provides to DC/North Virginia area residents. As a north/south hub, it's costs are too high and gets killed in connectivity vs ATL/CLT.

Again, MCO/FLL doesn't work for someone with cost of UA. Only LCCs can build large scale non-hub operations there.


It’s true that IAD isn’t a great location for intra-SE traffic, but it’s not that bad. The reason it makes sense for United to build up there is because they already have a large (and growing) operation there. Dulles has both strong local traffic and the international options. These are complimentary when expanding domestic connecting opportunities, even if the geography isn’t as favorable as ATL or CLT.
 
User avatar
ChrisNH38
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:03 pm

I was thinking that UA ought to ‘step up’ in Boston in light of moves made by AA, DL, B6 and others. But then I realized that UA is probably doing enough at Logan as it is, which is fine.
https://my.flightradar24.com/ChrisNH
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6193
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:32 pm

LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Why would UA engage in a bloodbath for control of those markets when they have hubs close by all of them? Yes they’re important markets, but an airline can’t be everything to everyone. It’s better to dominate what you have then to make a play for brand new markets at your current hubs expense.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
coairman
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:31 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:33 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
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.



The only way UA could have a SE hub is by purchasing B6.........then MCO and FLL would be hubs........
The views I express are of my own, and not the company I work for.
 
Nicknuzzii
Topic Author
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:47 pm

LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Thank you for exactly nailing my point!
 
LH658
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:35 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:11 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Why would UA engage in a bloodbath for control of those markets when they have hubs close by all of them? Yes they’re important markets, but an airline can’t be everything to everyone. It’s better to dominate what you have then to make a play for brand new markets at your current hubs expense.



That's true, I know UA has covered some of the markets with their JV partners like ANA and LH to cities like San Diego, Seattle, Austin, Boston, and etc. Though within the domestic market, leisure market, and business market from cities that have potential, to other parts of the World UA is lacking compared to AA and DL. I don't recommend UA to be like Delta fully though the America market is changing, and population, industries are booming in such cities. Not everyone wants to connect through a major hub though, obviously Delta and AA, are doing their homework, before operating such routes. UA already has a direct ground staff at some of these cities, and even UA clubs.
 
SEU
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:51 pm

Let AA and DL scrap it out and quietly expand under the radar.
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:47 pm

rbavfan wrote:
ordbosewr wrote:
While conventional wisdom would say they need to do something bold to counter this move, my perspective is that they need to stay the course they have. When the MAX issue gets resolve UA will probably have 50+ new aircraft within a year (if the UA fleet thread is accurate). That will help to close the mainline gap they have, but not solve it (yes, some other planes will be retired when these come on board)
UA can't expect to try to acquire anyone. If they try to get B6 into *A I just don't think the regulators will allow codesharing/etc.
It is either B6 or Hawaiian, and I do not think HA does much for UA, so that leaves B6 or build out organically.
My guess is UA stays the path.

I am not convinced that AA and Alaska will be a cakewalk approval from regulators that many here feel it will be, but maybe I am being to narrowly focused.



Ok B6 is not merging. Get over it. And if they did UA would most likeley have to divest of some of their slots at EWR to get approval. They would not weaken EWR to get back to JFK.


There are no more slots at EWR, that's why you've seen Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant and Sun Country enter and expand operations there. Each LCC that comes in and launches a route from EWR, it chips away from UAL's market share there (minus WN because they just left.) Don't kid yourself, EWR is not nearly as a hub captive territory like it used to be back in the CO days. I really do think UA knows this too and wouldn't mind trading up some of it's EWR operation for JFK B6 territory.

UA is also having problems managing the facilities at the aging Terminal C at EWR as is with broken restrooms and lack of clubs and club space. EWR is also a very expensive hub to run hence why it's no longer at the top of scale with profitability anymore like back in the old days.
 
codc10
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:01 pm

N649DL wrote:
UA is also having problems managing the facilities at the aging Terminal C at EWR as is with broken restrooms and lack of clubs and club space. EWR is also a very expensive hub to run hence why it's no longer at the top of scale with profitability anymore like back in the old days.


UA is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar program to replace the existing restrooms and add several new ones to roughly double the number of restrooms as there historically had been. The much-needed renovation of existing restrooms meant that temporary facilities have been set up. Are you seriously suggesting that is indicative of “problems managing” Terminal C?

A legal dispute with OTG, UA and the PANYNJ stood in the way of a tenant alteration plan for the new United Club at Terminal C. Construction is now underway on what will be the largest United Club in the system. It’s long overdue, but at least it’s finally happening. The Polaris Lounges are the best business class lounges in the country.

EWR was *never* among the highest-margin hubs because it was always a high-cost operation. It was, and remains, one of the highest-grossing single airline (CO, then UA) operations in the world, and presently generates more revenue than ever before.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:36 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


Just like DL needs a hub in Texas for the demand from TX itself. Or AA needs an intermountain hub to compete with [email protected] and [email protected] The US3 are not yet perfectly at home in every region of the USA
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6193
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:28 am

spinotter wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


Just like DL needs a hub in Texas for the demand from TX itself. Or AA needs an intermountain hub to compete with [email protected] and [email protected] The US3 are not yet perfectly at home in every region of the USA


They don’t need to be in every region
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:01 am

No chance on a B6 partnership. Between the definite lawsuit that would occur over having two giants in the NYC area working together, what does it bring to the table for B6? They focus a lot on VFR and O&D traffic they just don’t have much overlap.
 
avek00
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:39 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
is it finally time for UA to make a move and expand outside of its hubs?


Nope. Any significant domestic expansion outside of its hubs would be a guaranteed ticket to losing a billion-plus dollars, and likely tank recently restored operational reliability while doing so. AA and DL are making focus cities for themselves precisely because they cannot replicate United's route network. United's hubs are the top US cities people travel to/from for work and leisure.

IF there's any possibility of beyond-hub expansion, it would be UA using its large FRA/MUC operations to send 767s/787s into some smaller US markets where a LH 330/777/747 would be too large or too premium-heavy (or, really, just too expensive for LH to economically operate). That said, any such thinking would likely take a back seat to further growth in EWR and elsewhere, so don't hold your breath.
Live life to the fullest.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:30 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


Just like DL needs a hub in Texas for the demand from TX itself. Or AA needs an intermountain hub to compete with [email protected] and [email protected] The US3 are not yet perfectly at home in every region of the USA


They don’t need to be in every region


I agree, but I bet the Delta executives often think about the nearly 30 million Texans with some regret, even though the DL hub at DFW could not compete with AA. They are not moving very fast on Austin, it seems to me.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 865
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:52 pm

spinotter wrote:

I agree, but I bet the Delta executives often think about the nearly 30 million Texans with some regret, even though the DL hub at DFW could not compete with AA. They are not moving very fast on Austin, it seems to me.


In many towns you would have a Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge dealership on all corners of an intersection. Perhaps we are heading back in this direction mostly at many of the middle and small sized airports if we aren’t nearly there already.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 865
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 pm

• Denver is an amazing hub out West.

• Houston IAH has suffered aesthetically with age,

• Newark well it is close to New York City. “What can one really say” about this circumstance of geography.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
airzona11
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:00 pm

LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Where is the traffic from those cities going? NYC? Bay Area? LA? Chicago? UA is still competitive O/D to those destinations. Key markets O/D are addressed. DL/AA might be trying to build up a focus hub/connecting flow, but that does not mean UA is missing high margin flying. For international, UA/DL/AA can all leverage their JV partners to connect the dots.

Conceptually chasing markets is exactly when defined the bankrupt airlines of the 2000s.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:05 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Thank you for exactly nailing my point!


That point is a contributing factor why America West, Continental, Delta, American, Northwest, Air Tran, United, Virgin America, Midwest Express, etc all filed for bankruptcy or sold into merger situations. Not sustainable or margin certain moves. It is also why for a decade now the majors have been parking 50 seat regionals by the hundreds. They were chasing markets that couldn’t make money mainline, so they outsourced to cheap regional flying, and the economics did not work there.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:24 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
spinotter wrote:

I agree, but I bet the Delta executives often think about the nearly 30 million Texans with some regret, even though the DL hub at DFW could not compete with AA. They are not moving very fast on Austin, it seems to me.


In many towns you would have a Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge dealership on all corners of an intersection. Perhaps we are heading back in this direction mostly at many of the middle and small sized airports if we aren’t nearly there already.


I miss Northwest Airlines. They were always a bit diffferent from the other big US airlines, they covered the Minneapolis to Seattle routes where my family grew up, and they marched to a somewhat different drummer from their competitors. It all ended in 1989 with Checchi and the leveraged buyout. Delta is on top of its form now, and a lot of its DNA came from MSP. I'm sure others regret the disappearance of Piedmont, Continental, Allegheny/USAir, National and so forth. The US3 are too big and too similar. Capitalism and its discontents?
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:46 pm

codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
UA is also having problems managing the facilities at the aging Terminal C at EWR as is with broken restrooms and lack of clubs and club space. EWR is also a very expensive hub to run hence why it's no longer at the top of scale with profitability anymore like back in the old days.


UA is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar program to replace the existing restrooms and add several new ones to roughly double the number of restrooms as there historically had been. The much-needed renovation of existing restrooms meant that temporary facilities have been set up. Are you seriously suggesting that is indicative of “problems managing” Terminal C?

A legal dispute with OTG, UA and the PANYNJ stood in the way of a tenant alteration plan for the new United Club at Terminal C. Construction is now underway on what will be the largest United Club in the system. It’s long overdue, but at least it’s finally happening. The Polaris Lounges are the best business class lounges in the country.

EWR was *never* among the highest-margin hubs because it was always a high-cost operation. It was, and remains, one of the highest-grossing single airline (CO, then UA) operations in the world, and presently generates more revenue than ever before.


I actually am suggesting UA has problems managing Terminal C (and it's not new either.) It doesn't have a popular reputation (get off a.net's echo chambers and check it out) and one example of just how bad it apparently is now that UA had to install open air "pop up" restrooms next to restaurant facilities where people eat. The place has always been a zoo, but now the terminal is getting up there in age where things are starting to break.

Regarding the Polaris Lounge, it didn't take a rocket science to realize if you take the biggest existing club in the terminal and convert it to (basically) a first class only lounge, then you're going to have capacity issues in the dated club by C74. UA either has really bad luck with construction planning & execution at EWR or the unions really know how to strong arm them.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:30 am

spinotter wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
spinotter wrote:

I agree, but I bet the Delta executives often think about the nearly 30 million Texans with some regret, even though the DL hub at DFW could not compete with AA. They are not moving very fast on Austin, it seems to me.


In many towns you would have a Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge dealership on all corners of an intersection. Perhaps we are heading back in this direction mostly at many of the middle and small sized airports if we aren’t nearly there already.


I miss Northwest Airlines. They were always a bit diffferent from the other big US airlines, they covered the Minneapolis to Seattle routes where my family grew up, and they marched to a somewhat different drummer from their competitors. It all ended in 1989 with Checchi and the leveraged buyout. Delta is on top of its form now, and a lot of its DNA came from MSP. I'm sure others regret the disappearance of Piedmont, Continental, Allegheny/USAir, National and so forth. The US3 are too big and too similar. Capitalism and its discontents?


Nostalgic for the old here, too, but I wouldn't say capitalism is at fault. Did you just feel that Breeze whip by?
 
wn676
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:57 am

N649DL wrote:
codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
UA is also having problems managing the facilities at the aging Terminal C at EWR as is with broken restrooms and lack of clubs and club space. EWR is also a very expensive hub to run hence why it's no longer at the top of scale with profitability anymore like back in the old days.


UA is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar program to replace the existing restrooms and add several new ones to roughly double the number of restrooms as there historically had been. The much-needed renovation of existing restrooms meant that temporary facilities have been set up. Are you seriously suggesting that is indicative of “problems managing” Terminal C?

A legal dispute with OTG, UA and the PANYNJ stood in the way of a tenant alteration plan for the new United Club at Terminal C. Construction is now underway on what will be the largest United Club in the system. It’s long overdue, but at least it’s finally happening. The Polaris Lounges are the best business class lounges in the country.

EWR was *never* among the highest-margin hubs because it was always a high-cost operation. It was, and remains, one of the highest-grossing single airline (CO, then UA) operations in the world, and presently generates more revenue than ever before.


I actually am suggesting UA has problems managing Terminal C (and it's not new either.) It doesn't have a popular reputation (get off a.net's echo chambers and check it out) and one example of just how bad it apparently is now that UA had to install open air "pop up" restrooms next to restaurant facilities where people eat. The place has always been a zoo, but now the terminal is getting up there in age where things are starting to break.

Regarding the Polaris Lounge, it didn't take a rocket science to realize if you take the biggest existing club in the terminal and convert it to (basically) a first class only lounge, then you're going to have capacity issues in the dated club by C74. UA either has really bad luck with construction planning & execution at EWR or the unions really know how to strong arm them.


I don’t understand the constant whining around here about the temporary restrooms. Yes, we get it, it’s inconvenient and an eyesore, but please try to remember that 1) they are temporary and 2) they are needed in order to allow the renovation of existing restrooms to a better standard. Unless you would prefer that they just not offer any restroom facilities while they’re under construction or that they simply leave everything as it is, because those are the alternatives. Think of a highway repaving project; you can’t always build a fully-functioning second roadway with the same LoS, as great as that would be, and you often have to deal with temporary lane closures, detours, or simply driving over unpaved sections. Same concept applies here.

Regarding the Clubs situation, as codc10 alluded to, the plan was to always bring a second Club online; UA did not just realize after the fact that they had a capacity issue with the C1 club. I imagine that delaying the Polaris project until the new C3 club was up and running would be similarly unacceptable to some.

What it comes down to is a prioritization of space and resources when you’re dealing with development and construction and there’s never going to be a perfect answer for everything through all phases of projects, especially in a place like EWR. Thankfully, at least UA is actually doing something with Terminal C instead of dithering and letting the facility continue to age.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14142
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:47 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
I don't pretend to know much about finances of the airlines, but maybe UA can sit back while DL and AA pummel each other.

Just because DL and AA are doing stuff doesn't mean they'll be successful/profitable at it.

We'll see. Maybe UA will indeed be left behind. They're all relatively healthy, fortunately


DL took a big gamble with SEA with mixed results. AA's bold move really cuts them off at the knees, it gives AS the broad network they have needed to win the corporate customers in Seattle. It also gives AA a better trans-Pacific gateway. LAX is too saturated with foreign carriers for a significant Pacific gateway to be successful, there's demand but the foreign carriers keeps the fares too low.

AA also has the right aircraft, the 789, to do stuff DL will never be able to replicate with 763s, A330NEO's and A350s. Bangalore is one example, Singapore might be another. I can also see AA or Qantas launching SEA-SYD. Combine that with the existing Oneworld partners already at SEA, Cathy Pacific, JAL, British Airways and you have a Oneworld hub solidified where as DL's will still be developing.

As for United, this battle for Seattle allows SFO to continue to dominate the West Coast.

Elsewhere United is expanding their facilities at Denver, ORD, and IAH which also have plenty of runway capacity. United's stated their plans are to grow their three mid Continent hubs to up to 700 daily said flights. What is holding the, back is they have less single aisle mainline aircraft than AA and DL. The Max grounding obviously have slowed their growth plans, but I suspect once the grounding is lifted they will add significantly on top of their Max orders already on the books.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
tphuang
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:12 pm

STT757 wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
I don't pretend to know much about finances of the airlines, but maybe UA can sit back while DL and AA pummel each other.

Just because DL and AA are doing stuff doesn't mean they'll be successful/profitable at it.

We'll see. Maybe UA will indeed be left behind. They're all relatively healthy, fortunately


DL took a big gamble with SEA with mixed results. AA's bold move really cuts them off at the knees, it gives AS the broad network they have needed to win the corporate customers in Seattle. It also gives AA a better trans-Pacific gateway. LAX is too saturated with foreign carriers for a significant Pacific gateway to be successful, there's demand but the foreign carriers keeps the fares too low.

AA also has the right aircraft, the 789, to do stuff DL will never be able to replicate with 763s, A330NEO's and A350s. Bangalore is one example, Singapore might be another. I can also see AA or Qantas launching SEA-SYD. Combine that with the existing Oneworld partners already at SEA, Cathy Pacific, JAL, British Airways and you have a Oneworld hub solidified where as DL's will still be developing.

As for United, this battle for Seattle allows SFO to continue to dominate the West Coast.

Elsewhere United is expanding their facilities at Denver, ORD, and IAH which also have plenty of runway capacity. United's stated their plans are to grow their three mid Continent hubs to up to 700 daily said flights. What is holding the, back is they have less single aisle mainline aircraft than AA and DL. The Max grounding obviously have slowed their growth plans, but I suspect once the grounding is lifted they will add significantly on top of their Max orders already on the books.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


It won't be along until AS start expanding at SFO again. They will have all of T-2 to themselves + whatever AA flies + a host of OW airlines to SFO. And OneWorld will now become the largest alliance in LAX. UA can continue with its Mid-continent expansion, but they are no longer the strongest legacy west coast airline after this move. AA has now the most complete domestic route map. UA continues to be the weakest in East coast. It needs to strengthen there.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:18 pm

tphuang wrote:
UA continues to be the weakest in East coast. It needs to strengthen there.


And I think we all know just how UA can fix that east coast (and Caribbean) weakness.......
 
mmahpeel
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:34 pm

tphuang wrote:

It won't be along until AS start expanding at SFO again. They will have all of T-2 to themselves + whatever AA flies + a host of OW airlines to SFO.


UA is planning to take some gates at SFO T2 once AA vacates.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14142
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:40 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
tphuang wrote:
UA continues to be the weakest in East coast. It needs to strengthen there.


And I think we all know just how UA can fix that east coast (and Caribbean) weakness.......


Regarding JetBlue, if United could forge a relationship with them similar to the one Continental had with Northwest in the late Nineties and early 2000s that would be ideal. Codeshare where they don't compete head to head, frequent flyer benefits and Star Alliance affiliation.

A merger is too disruptive for few benefits. UA might want back into Kennedy airport, but not 200 daily flights to mostly low yield destinations in Florida and the Caribbean, The most flights United probably would want is 25 daily flights, even that is probably too much.

I don't think they want Boston, they do want want Florida either MCO or FLL.

If United wanted to get larger via a merger they should buy Spirit, it would give the, hubs in MCO and FLL with international flights. They have mini focus cities all over, plus a much smaller work force which can easily be integrated into a United.

The problem with JetBlue is now that they have hit twenty years of service they have more senior employees who are looking for a payday. JetBlue employee relations feels too toxic.

United buying Spirit would be reminiscent of Continental buying PeoplExpress which was the original ULCC. That merger worked as the PeoplExpress employees got a much improved workplace and Continental got a lucrative hub.

Spirit has a smaller, younger workforce than JetBlue. There would be no culture problems as all the Spirit employees would be thrilled to get United pay and benefits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
hohd
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:18 pm

UA has heavy competition at its hubs (ORD, LAX) or in the city they are operating out of (EWR, IAH, IAD, SFO all have multiple airports with other airlines competing). So they have do not make any effort to fly from non-hubs instead focusing on hubs. However I think UA is slipping behind in cities where they could be at least No.2, examples are Austin, San Antonio or New Orleans. They are also slipping behind LAX while DL and may be AA are bulking up. They are not using IAD to its strengths, they may need a mini SE hub, best I can think of is Nashville or RDU, both of which are or going towards being DL or AA focus cities, but they can compete too. Even in CLE they are falling behind, cutting service to IAD.
 
jbwhite99
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:21 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:31 pm

airzona11 wrote:
LH658 wrote:
As cities like RDU, AUS, BOS, SEA, and other cities are growing and lack a real hub for a airline. DL and AA are beating UA to the punch to capture some key markets out of such cities.


Where is the traffic from those cities going? NYC? Bay Area? LA? Chicago? UA is still competitive O/D to those destinations. Key markets O/D are addressed. DL/AA might be trying to build up a focus hub/connecting flow, but that does not mean UA is missing high margin flying. For international, UA/DL/AA can all leverage their JV partners to connect the dots.

Conceptually chasing markets is exactly when defined the bankrupt airlines of the 2000s.


All RDU (which opened a nice new United Lounge last year), it seems that the only mainline is to their hubs - IAH, EWR, ORD, DEN, and 2x (soon to go to 3x) SFO. The only partner that flies here is AC, who goes to both YUL and YYZ. Both AA (LHR) and DL (CDG) offer international service, and Delta has now amassed over 30% market share (AA and WN are around 20%, with LCC and UA having the rest). The problem is that there is so much competition on key routes - Atlanta (3 carriers), Chicago (OHare 4, MDW 1), Boston (5), Orlando (4) are 4 of the top 5 markets - and they are all saturated (only AA flies to CLT). Denver is the 10th market, and F9 and WN are competition there. What Raleigh needs is service to San Jose (CA, not CR) - which if they get it (WN was flying it once a week until they ran out of planes) would cannibalize some of UA's service to SFO (AS just dropped SFO - added by Virgin), SAN, and PDX. They already have 2 airlines flying to both SEA and LAX.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:27 pm

STT757 wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
tphuang wrote:
UA continues to be the weakest in East coast. It needs to strengthen there.


And I think we all know just how UA can fix that east coast (and Caribbean) weakness.......


Regarding JetBlue, if United could forge a relationship with them similar to the one Continental had with Northwest in the late Nineties and early 2000s that would be ideal. Codeshare where they don't compete head to head, frequent flyer benefits and Star Alliance affiliation.

A merger is too disruptive for few benefits. UA might want back into Kennedy airport, but not 200 daily flights to mostly low yield destinations in Florida and the Caribbean, The most flights United probably would want is 25 daily flights, even that is probably too much.

I don't think they want Boston, they do want want Florida either MCO or FLL.

If United wanted to get larger via a merger they should buy Spirit, it would give the, hubs in MCO and FLL with international flights. They have mini focus cities all over, plus a much smaller work force which can easily be integrated into a United.

The problem with JetBlue is now that they have hit twenty years of service they have more senior employees who are looking for a payday. JetBlue employee relations feels too toxic.

United buying Spirit would be reminiscent of Continental buying PeoplExpress which was the original ULCC. That merger worked as the PeoplExpress employees got a much improved workplace and Continental got a lucrative hub.

Spirit has a smaller, younger workforce than JetBlue. There would be no culture problems as all the Spirit employees would be thrilled to get United pay and benefits.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

A lot of B6 pilots are dreaming of a UA merger, but I think partnership works better for both airlines.

Maybe a slot swap deal between UA and B6. 15 JFK slots for a number of LGA and DCA slots. Clearly, UA has some spare LGA slots now. UA moves into the new B6 large terminal. It becomes a mini-*A terminal. B6 stops expansion at EWR. BOS becomes another *A hub allowing UA to gain more ff in Northeast. UA gets to have JFK/BOS/Florida presence without having to get into a bloodbath with DL/AA. They can continue their mid continent expansion while East Coast is taken care of. B6 gets some LGA/DCA slots and a partner with national network to help them with IRROPs and network issues.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:47 pm

I'm wondering if the people complaining about EWR Terminal C have been there in the last 5 years? It's been massively updated and is generally quite nice. Yes, there are some inconveniences as the renovations are finishing up, but overall I think it's one of the best terminals in any major US airport. Once the clubs and bathrooms have finished being built out it will be even better.

Having lived in NYC for a while,EWR's bad reputation comes from terminals A and B in my experience. The people I've spoken to who have gone through Terminal C recently have remarked on how nice it is. It's not just an a.net thing.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:09 pm

tphuang wrote:
STT757 wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
I don't pretend to know much about finances of the airlines, but maybe UA can sit back while DL and AA pummel each other.

Just because DL and AA are doing stuff doesn't mean they'll be successful/profitable at it.

We'll see. Maybe UA will indeed be left behind. They're all relatively healthy, fortunately


DL took a big gamble with SEA with mixed results. AA's bold move really cuts them off at the knees, it gives AS the broad network they have needed to win the corporate customers in Seattle. It also gives AA a better trans-Pacific gateway. LAX is too saturated with foreign carriers for a significant Pacific gateway to be successful, there's demand but the foreign carriers keeps the fares too low.

AA also has the right aircraft, the 789, to do stuff DL will never be able to replicate with 763s, A330NEO's and A350s. Bangalore is one example, Singapore might be another. I can also see AA or Qantas launching SEA-SYD. Combine that with the existing Oneworld partners already at SEA, Cathy Pacific, JAL, British Airways and you have a Oneworld hub solidified where as DL's will still be developing.

As for United, this battle for Seattle allows SFO to continue to dominate the West Coast.

Elsewhere United is expanding their facilities at Denver, ORD, and IAH which also have plenty of runway capacity. United's stated their plans are to grow their three mid Continent hubs to up to 700 daily said flights. What is holding the, back is they have less single aisle mainline aircraft than AA and DL. The Max grounding obviously have slowed their growth plans, but I suspect once the grounding is lifted they will add significantly on top of their Max orders already on the books.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


It won't be along until AS start expanding at SFO again. They will have all of T-2 to themselves + whatever AA flies + a host of OW airlines to SFO. And OneWorld will now become the largest alliance in LAX. UA can continue with its Mid-continent expansion, but they are no longer the strongest legacy west coast airline after this move. AA has now the most complete domestic route map. UA continues to be the weakest in East coast. It needs to strengthen there.


Hold up. How does UA not have the best hub on the West Coast in SFO? UA has Asia and Europe covered, a large Star Alliance presence, and a huge domestic presence. They also have a hub in LAX. And from West to East or East to West, DEN is perfectly placed to fill in the gaps.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:22 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
United needs a FL hub not for connections but because of demand from FL itself. Connections are just icing on the cake. Florida’s major airports are already busier than actual hubs like EWR and IAH without any connections.


No...it doesnt.

Yes Florida is a huge market, but not every airline needs to be everything to everyone.


UA is also good at bringing people TO Florida (and back home). They are better positioned to do that- and to do it well versus trying to establish a hub this late in the game.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:44 pm

tphuang wrote:
A lot of B6 pilots are dreaming of a UA merger, but I think partnership works better for both airlines.

Maybe a slot swap deal between UA and B6. 15 JFK slots for a number of LGA and DCA slots. Clearly, UA has some spare LGA slots now. UA moves into the new B6 large terminal. It becomes a mini-*A terminal. B6 stops expansion at EWR. BOS becomes another *A hub allowing UA to gain more ff in Northeast. UA gets to have JFK/BOS/Florida presence without having to get into a bloodbath with DL/AA. They can continue their mid continent expansion while East Coast is taken care of. B6 gets some LGA/DCA slots and a partner with national network to help them with IRROPs and network issues.



Although I have not commented on this thread for a few days I have been reading it and I've been paying very close attention to your position tphuang. I must say you make a convincing argument for a codeshare partnership (I think the regulators are done approving mergers). At first I just dismissed your position but as I continued to read this thread you may have a point but are these two airlines willing to work together. We know people outside the airline industry have been pushing from behind the scenes for a UA/B6 hookup, so much so that last year at a town hall Munoz and Kirby had to address the rumors and they stated UA was not pursuing a merger with B6 instead UA would grow organically. I think it is safe to assume a merger is off the table I still believe the cost of a UA/B6 merger would be to high for either airline to pay. But a codeshare like AA/AS's could be beneficial and the cost of that partnership might be something UA and B6 would agree to. I probably would all come down to EWR, like you pointed out UA is the smallest airline at LGA and BOS of the US3. However at EWR UA dominates and UA will defend their position and marketshare at EWR at all cost. If a codeshare with B6 doesn't cost UA to much at EWR I think it is something UA would go for.

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