Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MIflyer12
Topic Author
Posts: 7754
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:01 pm

“Based on how doctors expect the virus to spread and how economists expect the global economy to react, we expect demand to remain suppressed for months after that, possibly into next year,” CEO Oscar Munoz and United’s president, Scott Kirby, who’s scheduled to take the helm in May, wrote in a message to employees. “That means being honest, fair and upfront with you: if the recovery is as slow as we fear, it means our airline and our workforce will have to be smaller than it is today.

Emphasis mine. As cited by CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/corovan ... -cuts.html

Further: Executives have warned that even their reduced schedules are drawing few travelers. Chicago-based United has cut its April schedule by more than 60% and expects planes to fly less than 20% full or in the single digits in some cases, the executives said.

The company plans to hold a “virtual town hall” meeting with employees on April 2.


Same Munoz/Kirby note cited by TPG:

But come October, a smaller United will need fewer employees as Munoz and Kirby warn. Hence the offers that aim to cut payrolls voluntarily before the aid runs out.


“This federal assistance buys us time to adapt to this new environment and assess how long it will take for our economy to begin to recover,” they said.


https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... ronavirus/

Every carrier that survives is going to emerge smaller. Many will not survive without massive government aid. The U.S. Federal government is offering grants to cover up to 100% of payroll costs for six months (the amount 4/1/2019-9/30/2019), and an equal amount in loans/loan guarantees.

Here's a more detailed (and cynical view) of the restrictions that come with government grants:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 9cc6d44ca2

Under the bailout, airline executives and shareholders get seated in first class. Dividends and stock buybacks are prohibited only through September 2021. Non-union employees making over $425,000 annually in 2019 cannot receive a salary increase until March 2022, yet this may have limited relevancy:
...
Total compensation is capped at $3 million plus 50% over the $3m earned in 2019. Democrats proposed airline CEOs for 10 years do not receive compensation greater than 50 times the median pay at their company; American Airlines CEO Doug Parker’s 2018 compensation of $12m was 195 times the median pay. Golden parachutes are capped at twice 2019 compensation
...
Employees are only guaranteed no layoffs or wage reductions through September 30 of this year. There is widespread belief that airlines will emerge from this crisis smaller.
...
While there are provisions for airlines to maintain services for two years to certain markets, like small cities, there is no requirement about their future size. Aviation can be a catalyst to stimulate the rest of the economy.
...
Despite the airlines promoting U.S.-based jobs, a provision was removed requiring them to stop outsourcing heavy aircraft maintenance and instead do it in the U.S., creating highly skilled technical jobs.


It would have been interesting to be part of those negotiations. IMHO that's not a lot of strings attached for $25 Billion in grants.
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:10 pm

I wonder what this means for IAH and DEN.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:25 pm

There is a similar thread on Delta:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1443189

The reality is, this event is of a type to reduce demand. Small and mid-size business will not support their normal demand until they recover financially. The cruise industry was a source of growing demand and I suspect they cannot recover quickly. In particular, the flags of convenience cannot afford to subsidize the ships.

My best case assumptions have demand returning summer of 2021. However, more likely add a year or two. Frequency and gauge will drop Marginal P2P routes will be reduced.

Serious question, is there in UA's employment contract anything to stop them from immetating the ULCCs with reduced weekly frequency? For example, instead of dropping a route, say SFO-xxx & yyy, say fly one Mon & Fri, the other Tue & Sat and if yield justifies, add Sun to one?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
onwFan
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:27 pm

IAH is the gateway to Latin America for UA and DEN is an important East-West connecting hub - maybe a few odd destinations dropped here and there, but mostly would be frequency reductions... Neither is in any big danger. I would except some more rearrangements between EWR and IAD; and some routes from LAX to smaller cities in the West (that they started recently) being dropped.
 
Toinou
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:33 pm

onwFan wrote:
IAH is the gateway to Latin America for UA and DEN is an important East-West connecting hub - maybe a few odd destinations dropped here and there, but mostly would be frequency reductions... Neither is in any big danger. I would except some more rearrangements between EWR and IAD; and some routes from LAX to smaller cities in the West (that they started recently) being dropped.

To what extent can hubs still work with reduced frequencies? This system rely on the fact that people can connect in a reasonable amount of time. If you go under a certain level, the whole system starts to collapse.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:31 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
I wonder what this means for IAH and DEN.


I’d go so far as to say those two hubs (along with ORD) are in the least danger.

1) Domestic flying will be the first thing to recover. DEN and ORD (IAH to a lesser extent) are the major domestic gateways.

2) Latin America has been the least affected region of this virus along with Africa. If trends hold, demand should recover relatively quickly compared to Europe or Asia.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
Aither
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:57 pm

Good, we will get bigger then.
Both DL & UA have been looking to "rationalize" their network for quite some time. This crisis is the "opportunity" to speed up things.
Never trust the obvious
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2068
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
...Serious question, is there in UA's employment contract anything to stop them from immetating the ULCCs with reduced weekly frequency? For example, instead of dropping a route, say SFO-xxx & yyy, say fly one Mon & Fri, the other Tue & Sat and if yield justifies, add Sun to one?

Lightsaber


Which employment contract? As I recall, the ALPA contract (I have a copy, but I'm not going to bother to look it up right now), there's no requirement to have daily service in a market. For example, GUM has several less than daily flights. Also, during the slower seasons, some of the other international flights are less than daily - didn't DEN-FRA go to 5 days a week for the winter?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:18 pm

Where will UA will put all of their 77Ws and 78Js that were based out of SFO that were used for Europe and Asia?
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:56 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
“Based on how doctors expect the virus to spread and how economists expect the global economy to react, we expect demand to remain suppressed for months after that, possibly into next year,” CEO Oscar Munoz and United’s president, Scott Kirby, who’s scheduled to take the helm in May, wrote in a message to employees. “That means being honest, fair and upfront with you: if the recovery is as slow as we fear, it means our airline and our workforce will have to be smaller than it is today.

Emphasis mine. As cited by CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/corovan ... -cuts.html

Further: Executives have warned that even their reduced schedules are drawing few travelers. Chicago-based United has cut its April schedule by more than 60% and expects planes to fly less than 20% full or in the single digits in some cases, the executives said.

The company plans to hold a “virtual town hall” meeting with employees on April 2.


Same Munoz/Kirby note cited by TPG:

But come October, a smaller United will need fewer employees as Munoz and Kirby warn. Hence the offers that aim to cut payrolls voluntarily before the aid runs out.


“This federal assistance buys us time to adapt to this new environment and assess how long it will take for our economy to begin to recover,” they said.


https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... ronavirus/

Every carrier that survives is going to emerge smaller. Many will not survive without massive government aid. The U.S. Federal government is offering grants to cover up to 100% of payroll costs for six months (the amount 4/1/2019-9/30/2019), and an equal amount in loans/loan guarantees.

Here's a more detailed (and cynical view) of the restrictions that come with government grants:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 9cc6d44ca2

Under the bailout, airline executives and shareholders get seated in first class. Dividends and stock buybacks are prohibited only through September 2021. Non-union employees making over $425,000 annually in 2019 cannot receive a salary increase until March 2022, yet this may have limited relevancy:
...
Total compensation is capped at $3 million plus 50% over the $3m earned in 2019. Democrats proposed airline CEOs for 10 years do not receive compensation greater than 50 times the median pay at their company; American Airlines CEO Doug Parker’s 2018 compensation of $12m was 195 times the median pay. Golden parachutes are capped at twice 2019 compensation
...
Employees are only guaranteed no layoffs or wage reductions through September 30 of this year. There is widespread belief that airlines will emerge from this crisis smaller.
...
While there are provisions for airlines to maintain services for two years to certain markets, like small cities, there is no requirement about their future size. Aviation can be a catalyst to stimulate the rest of the economy.
...
Despite the airlines promoting U.S.-based jobs, a provision was removed requiring them to stop outsourcing heavy aircraft maintenance and instead do it in the U.S., creating highly skilled technical jobs.


It would have been interesting to be part of those negotiations. IMHO that's not a lot of strings attached for $25 Billion in grants.


Actually the grant is very restrictive and not really a firsr class deal for airlines, shareholders and executives.
If anything, they were put in the cargo hold.

The reason is that the grant is insufficient to cover the payroll needs for the two quarters.
If you take the US3, their payroll alone is about 9 billions per quarter, closer to 12 billions if you include the regionals.
Even if they can get creative by taking out crew per diems, staff commute and other compensations, that would be 10 billions per quarter or 20 billions for the two quarters.

And then there is this little problem that there are also Southwest, Jetblue, Alaska, Frontier, Allegiant, Hawaiian, Spirit, Sun Country, others, and who knows, the entire Part 91/135 industry.

So the grants won't cover the full payroll and will not allow reduction in pay or staff numbers.
As for the shareholders, there is a little dilution involved with warrants that the airlines will have to issue to compensate the taxpayer for their kind gesture, because after all, the airlines should have had plenty of cash to survive this, if rhey hadn't distributed it recklessly.

The only problem is that while this deal is good and a lifeline from heaven, it's not good enough for some airlines who are going to hesitate between doing the responsible thing, ie taking the grant and keeping the workforce; or furloughing everyone except essential staff and forfeiting the grant.
I hope that it won't happen, but I could see it happen.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3530
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:03 pm

I could also see this as meaning that there will be fewer long-haul routes and less seats, basically sealing the fate for the pmUA Boeing 777-200/-200ER fleet (the pmCO B772 fleet having greater capabilities) and the remaining p.s. B752s and any B763s that don't get the 167-seat configuration. That massive narrow-body fleet could also see attrition, especially in the next few years as some of the older 320s and 73Gs approaching their fourth (fifth for A320s) heavy check in a few years, especially with newer used A319s from CZ and U2 coming into the fleet that could replace them. (I see most transcon flying being on international wide-bodies, especially to and from EWR or to and from SFO.)
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4899
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:26 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
“Based on how doctors expect the virus to spread and how economists expect the global economy to react, we expect demand to remain suppressed for months after that, possibly into next year,” CEO Oscar Munoz and United’s president, Scott Kirby, who’s scheduled to take the helm in May, wrote in a message to employees. “That means being honest, fair and upfront with you: if the recovery is as slow as we fear, it means our airline and our workforce will have to be smaller than it is today.

Emphasis mine. As cited by CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/corovan ... -cuts.html

Further: Executives have warned that even their reduced schedules are drawing few travelers. Chicago-based United has cut its April schedule by more than 60% and expects planes to fly less than 20% full or in the single digits in some cases, the executives said.

The company plans to hold a “virtual town hall” meeting with employees on April 2.


Same Munoz/Kirby note cited by TPG:

But come October, a smaller United will need fewer employees as Munoz and Kirby warn. Hence the offers that aim to cut payrolls voluntarily before the aid runs out.


“This federal assistance buys us time to adapt to this new environment and assess how long it will take for our economy to begin to recover,” they said.


https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... ronavirus/

Every carrier that survives is going to emerge smaller. Many will not survive without massive government aid. The U.S. Federal government is offering grants to cover up to 100% of payroll costs for six months (the amount 4/1/2019-9/30/2019), and an equal amount in loans/loan guarantees.

Here's a more detailed (and cynical view) of the restrictions that come with government grants:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton ... 9cc6d44ca2

Under the bailout, airline executives and shareholders get seated in first class. Dividends and stock buybacks are prohibited only through September 2021. Non-union employees making over $425,000 annually in 2019 cannot receive a salary increase until March 2022, yet this may have limited relevancy:
...
Total compensation is capped at $3 million plus 50% over the $3m earned in 2019. Democrats proposed airline CEOs for 10 years do not receive compensation greater than 50 times the median pay at their company; American Airlines CEO Doug Parker’s 2018 compensation of $12m was 195 times the median pay. Golden parachutes are capped at twice 2019 compensation
...
Employees are only guaranteed no layoffs or wage reductions through September 30 of this year. There is widespread belief that airlines will emerge from this crisis smaller.
...
While there are provisions for airlines to maintain services for two years to certain markets, like small cities, there is no requirement about their future size. Aviation can be a catalyst to stimulate the rest of the economy.
...
Despite the airlines promoting U.S.-based jobs, a provision was removed requiring them to stop outsourcing heavy aircraft maintenance and instead do it in the U.S., creating highly skilled technical jobs.


It would have been interesting to be part of those negotiations. IMHO that's not a lot of strings attached for $25 Billion in grants.

the provision alone to stop outsourcing the Overhaul jobs would probably cut United's fleet down to 400 Airplanes. and cutting the outsourced heavy Maintenance in Hong Kong and Bejing would definitely put United in the bind though? United does have the hangars to bring a lot of widebody work back in house from Asia. and there are enough USA Facilities to bring any and All Narrow body work back Home between SFO, TPA, and IAH, and probably DEN as well. But the Mechanics? That's a whole 'Nuther Story! But I can tell you? Nobody would be laid off!!
 
danipawa
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:41 pm

is United retiring some AC?
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:25 pm

I asked this in the Delta thread, but I think it was too early for any answers.

What does this mean for UA in LAX and their expansion into T9? Will those plans be delayed, or abandoned? If they plan on a smaller operation post-Corona, how much of T7/T8 will go unused?

What was the outcome of those recent real estate talks between LAWA and the airlines?
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4899
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:35 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
I wonder what this means for IAH and DEN.

IAH and DEN are not overstaffed are they? Denver is building a bunch of gates for United that they're committed to use when this is over. and I personally do not believe this will go on indefinitely. Just like any other emergency? It will get a handle put on it. We've been sheltering in place for 12 days now. This has got to be costing big companies "REAL Bread" and the loss of Bread? Will get them moving to find a fix! Hell! My wife can't gp out and it's causing ME heartburn! And It's got to be causing others heartburn as well!
 
jayunited
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:45 pm

Aither wrote:
Good, we will get bigger then.
Both DL & UA have been looking to "rationalize" their network for quite some time. This crisis is the "opportunity" to speed up things.


If you don't mind me asking who are you referring to when you stated "we will get bigger then"?
 
N649DL
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:58 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I could also see this as meaning that there will be fewer long-haul routes and less seats, basically sealing the fate for the pmUA Boeing 777-200/-200ER fleet (the pmCO B772 fleet having greater capabilities) and the remaining p.s. B752s and any B763s that don't get the 167-seat configuration. That massive narrow-body fleet could also see attrition, especially in the next few years as some of the older 320s and 73Gs approaching their fourth (fifth for A320s) heavy check in a few years, especially with newer used A319s from CZ and U2 coming into the fleet that could replace them. (I see most transcon flying being on international wide-bodies, especially to and from EWR or to and from SFO.)


The 773ERs have massive capacity and likely too much for many International routes so I could see cargo flights for them for a little while and thus I think the 772ER (but sUA and sCO) with Polaris conversions will be relied upon. The 763ERs now have downtime but will be crucial in terms of "right-sizing" International capacity while things are light and working their way back up. No idea how the 764ER will hold up in this matter as 6 are parked and 10 are in service. So I'm not sure if it's going to be become a niche fleet or not or phased out. At this time there are more 763ERs in service than 764ERs.

IIRC, it's not just the sUA 757s that are stored at the moment, there are sCO frames as well: Quite a few of the older CO 1994-1995 deliveries. I could also see UA parting ways with non-ER 739, & older 73G, 738, and 320 as well.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:00 pm

As I suggested in the Delta 'to be a smaller carrier', I think airlines like United will use this to reduce the number of seats available to improve profits and able to raise overall fares. They will ditch unprofitable routes, routes that don't deliver enough connecting pax, push some smaller market flights to non-mainline partner companies, let the LCC/ULCC's take the cheapskates, reduce some frequencies, shift some flights to narrowbodies or smaller ones if need to keep frequency, get rid of older mx and fuel hogs.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4251
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:36 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
I wonder what this means for IAH and DEN.

IAH and DEN are not overstaffed are they? Denver is building a bunch of gates for United that they're committed to use when this is over. and I personally do not believe this will go on indefinitely. Just like any other emergency? It will get a handle put on it. We've been sheltering in place for 12 days now. This has got to be costing big companies "REAL Bread" and the loss of Bread? Will get them moving to find a fix! Hell! My wife can't gp out and it's causing ME heartburn! And It's got to be causing others heartburn as well!


Depends what you mean by overstaffed? In the current schedule, every airport is overstaffed. Pre-COVID, DEN was understaffed and we were hiring anyone who could show up to the interview and pass the background and drug tests. Who knows what the final schedule will be when the dust settles.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:41 pm

For their wide body aircraft, they are just wrapping up refitting the 777-200s. 777-200ERs, and 767-300ERs with new interiors. With this recent investment, I doubt they would want to retire them. Makes me wonder if this means the 767-400ER will be retired soon? These are the only planes (aside from the 787s) which don't have the new interiors.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5062
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:47 pm

I wonder if this will be the end of the CRJ-550 experiment if economy and international travel are all going to be down.

So UA needs to think about where it's priorities are. I think they are.
DEN - the obvious ones, probably growth will be slowed, but it would be a mistake for them to not build toward 700 flights. a mountain region hub like that would be worth the weight of gold
ORD - This will be a bloody battle with AA for years to come. If they do well and AA continues to underperform, they could slowly wear out AA. Either way, the 3rd largest population center in the country and a great connection location needs to be prioritized.

The above 2 should keep growing.

after that.
IAH - short term, I think there will be more reductions here. The low oil prices will hurt Houston area demand. That's likely to be the case for a while. Also, IAH to Latam market might not recover as quickly as florida/new york to latam market. Long term, I think IAH will be fine.

EWR - again, short term will see cuts. With TATL down, there will be reduced demand in NY/NJ area for a little bit. I think all the major players in new york area will be a little reduced. I think the capacity will come back pretty fast to prevent ULCCs from building up.

IAD - I think this will be downsized for a few years. This was the most recent buildup and it will be the easiest to subtract from. They can always rebuild later once things are better. IAD does not need to worry about ULCC buildup. UA will continue to make money on the transcon/international stuff. connections should flow back into EWR to protect EWR.

SFO - another hub that I think will be downsized in the short term. There will just be reduced traffic to Asia and that will hurt their connections here.

LAX - I really think their operation here will be cut down quite a bit. I'd love for people to tell me otherwise. But it's a bloody battleground and I think their vision of T9 is going to be on the backburners for a while.
 
KFTG
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:49 pm

How would the 764 fare as a freighter? If DL and UA could find a single buyer...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19722
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:31 am

ltbewr wrote:
As I suggested in the Delta 'to be a smaller carrier', I think airlines like United will use this to reduce the number of seats available to improve profits and able to raise overall fares. They will ditch unprofitable routes, routes that don't deliver enough connecting pax, push some smaller market flights to non-mainline partner companies, let the LCC/ULCC's take the cheapskates, reduce some frequencies, shift some flights to narrowbodies or smaller ones if need to keep frequency, get rid of older mx and fuel hogs.

That was tried before with AA's "more room throughout coach." It failed. Miserably. Frequency drives premium more than seat real estate. People who sre willing to pay more space buy Y+.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15106
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:57 am

lightsaber wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
As I suggested in the Delta 'to be a smaller carrier', I think airlines like United will use this to reduce the number of seats available to improve profits and able to raise overall fares. They will ditch unprofitable routes, routes that don't deliver enough connecting pax, push some smaller market flights to non-mainline partner companies, let the LCC/ULCC's take the cheapskates, reduce some frequencies, shift some flights to narrowbodies or smaller ones if need to keep frequency, get rid of older mx and fuel hogs.

That was tried before with AA's "more room throughout coach." It failed. Miserably. Frequency drives premium more than seat real estate. People who sre willing to pay more space buy Y+.

Lightsaber

My post wasn't that airlines would take out seats in individual aircraft, for sure they will keep their tight pitch, not take out seats so ready when business improves, but will push selling of Y+ to business customers who's employers may limit use of biz/first seats, use small narrowbodies so keep frequency on selected routes yet reduce the number of overall seats available.
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:00 am

I think retiring types of aircraft outright is probably not the direction UA will go.

Most downturns last about 2 to 3 years before the economy recovers and expands back to where it was pre downturn. So if UA has an asset that has 3+ years of life left in it they probably won't retire it rather they will store it until they need it. They will probably lower utilization of their existing fleet, rotate aircraft in and out of storage as heavy checks come up to save on maintenance and defer deliveries of new aircraft. Where I see UA cutting back most is in the UAX fleet...which sort of sucks if you are an RJ driver. While this is a horrible situation my hope is UA takes advantage of this moment to fix one structural thing they have been working on for the last two years. They have an opportunity to fix their undersized domestic network...lets see if they can gain back some of their "natural market share."

I do think the PW powered 752 fleet, some of the older 763s and maybe some of the 772As are goners straight away. Otherwise I think it's going to be a game of parking capacity until they need it again....which they will.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:07 am

ltbewr wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
As I suggested in the Delta 'to be a smaller carrier', I think airlines like United will use this to reduce the number of seats available to improve profits and able to raise overall fares. They will ditch unprofitable routes, routes that don't deliver enough connecting pax, push some smaller market flights to non-mainline partner companies, let the LCC/ULCC's take the cheapskates, reduce some frequencies, shift some flights to narrowbodies or smaller ones if need to keep frequency, get rid of older mx and fuel hogs.

That was tried before with AA's "more room throughout coach." It failed. Miserably. Frequency drives premium more than seat real estate. People who sre willing to pay more space buy Y+.

Lightsaber

My post wasn't that airlines would take out seats in individual aircraft, for sure they will keep their tight pitch, not take out seats so ready when business improves, but will push selling of Y+ to business customers who's employers may limit use of biz/first seats, use small narrowbodies so keep frequency on selected routes yet reduce the number of overall seats available.


I mean that's already pretty much been happening before this. One of the big reasons if not THE reason for developing Y+ in the first place was to push it towards business pax who can't buy into the front of the plane due to policy.

As for gauge changes, UA has a bit less flexibility in that respect compared to AA or DL since they have fewer small mainline aircraft to shift down to and their fleet-wide average gauge is bigger to begin with. You could maybe see them lean more on the regionals again but who knows what that space will look like when this is over. And then even if the regional sector comes out mostly intact, they'd need to be assured of the yield premiums their getting to justify the higher CASM they'd have to deal with.
Last edited by ShinyAndChrome on Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
LupineChemist
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:15 am

United1 wrote:
I think retiring types of aircraft outright is probably not the direction UA will go.

Most downturns last about 2 to 3 years before the economy recovers and expands back to where it was pre downturn. So if UA has an asset that has 3+ years of life left in it they probably won't retire it rather they will store it until they need it. They will probably lower utilization of their existing fleet, rotate aircraft in and out of storage as heavy checks come up to save on maintenance and defer deliveries of new aircraft. Where I see UA cutting back most is in the UAX fleet...which sort of sucks if you are an RJ driver. While this is a horrible situation my hope is UA takes advantage of this moment to fix one structural thing they have been working on for the last two years. They have an opportunity to fix their undersized domestic network...lets see if they can gain back some of their "natural market share."

I do think the PW powered 752 fleet, some of the older 763s and maybe some of the 772As are goners straight away. Otherwise I think it's going to be a game of parking capacity until they need it again....which they will.


I think it's pretty clear we're well beyond "most downturns" at this point. The extent of the collapse, particularly in the airline industry is just mind boggling. You don't just turn everything back on and have it be where it was.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:24 am

Some of the lost capacity may not be needed for a VERY long time. We’re going to emerge into a recession, or possibly a depression. People won’t be flying nearly as frequently, and this will be like the post 9-11 restructure, on stilts. Long haul capacity will be cut and growth plans binned. This is unprecedented in modern history, it makes SARS look like hay fever and look at the impact that had. I would expect whole subtypes, if not types to be removed completely ASAP, regardless of how much was spent on a recent refit. If it’s not going to make you money now, it’s gone.
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:28 am

LupineChemist wrote:
United1 wrote:
I think retiring types of aircraft outright is probably not the direction UA will go.

Most downturns last about 2 to 3 years before the economy recovers and expands back to where it was pre downturn. So if UA has an asset that has 3+ years of life left in it they probably won't retire it rather they will store it until they need it. They will probably lower utilization of their existing fleet, rotate aircraft in and out of storage as heavy checks come up to save on maintenance and defer deliveries of new aircraft. Where I see UA cutting back most is in the UAX fleet...which sort of sucks if you are an RJ driver. While this is a horrible situation my hope is UA takes advantage of this moment to fix one structural thing they have been working on for the last two years. They have an opportunity to fix their undersized domestic network...lets see if they can gain back some of their "natural market share."

I do think the PW powered 752 fleet, some of the older 763s and maybe some of the 772As are goners straight away. Otherwise I think it's going to be a game of parking capacity until they need it again....which they will.


I think it's pretty clear we're well beyond "most downturns" at this point. The extent of the collapse, particularly in the airline industry is just mind boggling. You don't just turn everything back on and have it be where it was.


I agree with you that this has been a disaster for airlines around the world but.... There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US economy and the US4 have never been this strong/stable before entering into this downturn. I recognize this is unprecedented but again most downturns last 2-3 years. The economy is cyclical and there is nothing out there that says this downturn won't behave in the same way. Also I didn't say just turn everything back on and everything would be like it was rather this will be a gradual recovery for economy, UA (and all of the airlines.) but that recovery will happen and it won't be 10+ years down the road.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:29 am

I can see UA scaling back on their Australian operations. Can't see SYD-IAH returning for a long while (if ever), whilst SYD-LAX may be reduced to a NW seasonal service. SYD-SFO and MEL-SFO (at less than daily) I can see surviving.

Would be interesting to see what the QF/AA and DL/VA camps would reply with. Any QF/AA planned expansion on this corridor is very likely to be put on ice for the long term, possibly permanently. QF TransPac services that do return are likely to be downgauged to 789s for the medium term.

There's still the possibility of DL/VA pulling out entirely or returning with a scaled back skeletal operation of SYD-LAX and BNE (or) MEL to LAX only (less than daily).
 
Pi7472000
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:44 am

skipness1E wrote:
Some of the lost capacity may not be needed for a VERY long time. We’re going to emerge into a recession, or possibly a depression. People won’t be flying nearly as frequently, and this will be like the post 9-11 restructure, on stilts. Long haul capacity will be cut and growth plans binned. This is unprecedented in modern history, it makes SARS look like hay fever and look at the impact that had. I would expect whole subtypes, if not types to be removed completely ASAP, regardless of how much was spent on a recent refit. If it’s not going to make you money now, it’s gone.



Yes, if we enter a Depression it may take a decade or more to recover air travel to the levels United has seen. I would venture to say UA does not need IAH, LAX, or IAD anymore. They can focus on SFO, DEN, ORD, and EWR. It is sad as UA used to be so strong in LAX and I have used UA to travel the world from LAX. I could see them abandoning Latin America as they were a distant number 3, thus no need for IAH as it is too far South for domestic and is an oil city which is not good in a Depression.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:47 am

Will they continue Trans Pacific ops from EWR?
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:49 am

Pi7472000 wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Some of the lost capacity may not be needed for a VERY long time. We’re going to emerge into a recession, or possibly a depression. People won’t be flying nearly as frequently, and this will be like the post 9-11 restructure, on stilts. Long haul capacity will be cut and growth plans binned. This is unprecedented in modern history, it makes SARS look like hay fever and look at the impact that had. I would expect whole subtypes, if not types to be removed completely ASAP, regardless of how much was spent on a recent refit. If it’s not going to make you money now, it’s gone.



Yes, if we enter a Depression it may take a decade or more to recover air travel to the levels United has seen. I would venture to say UA does not need IAH, LAX, or IAD anymore. They can focus on SFO, DEN, ORD, and EWR. It is sad as UA used to be so strong in LAX and I have used UA to travel the world from LAX. I could see them abandoning Latin America as they were a distant number 3, thus no need for IAH as it is too far South for domestic and is an oil city which is not good in a Depression.


...actually UA is a distant number two to Latin America. DL is in 3rd place.

IAH, LAX and IAD are massive OD markets...and that's not going to change....I don't see UA exiting any of them.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
MIflyer12
Topic Author
Posts: 7754
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:56 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Will they continue Trans Pacific ops from EWR?


Some, of course. Why would they cut off an arm in NYC?
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:02 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
Will they continue Trans Pacific ops from EWR?


Some, of course. Why would they cut off an arm in NYC?


EWR and SFO will probably be the first two cities UA restores most of their Trans Pacific network from. I would bet that EWR will be back up and running TPAC before ORD and LAX do...certainly before IAD, DEN and IAH get their flights back.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
ctrabs0114
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:09 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:04 am

AVENSAB727 wrote:
Where will UA will put all of their 77Ws and 78Js that were based out of SFO that were used for Europe and Asia?


Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.
2019: DAL, MCI, PHX, LAS, DFW, SAT, ORD, SLC, SEA, DTW, PHL, MIA, LAX; B73G (WN x3), B738 (WN, AA, DL), A20N (NK), MD83 (AA), B788 (AA x2), CS1 (DL), B739 (DL), B712 (DL), B752 (AA), B763 (AA), B77W (AA), B789 (AA)
Next: TBA
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:13 am

ctrabs0114 wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
Where will UA will put all of their 77Ws and 78Js that were based out of SFO that were used for Europe and Asia?


Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.


UA has been storing the wide body fleet at all of the hubs as well as MCO, ILN and ROW. Sort of hard to keep track of where the wide bodies are right now as UA is rotating them in and out of service, still sending them for mods and is using them for 50 or so cargo only flights every day. The 77Ws are cargo hauling machines right now :)

The 78Xs are also doing SFO-AMS cargo runs.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:28 am

Looks like none of the 77Ws are stored right now. The ship number is followed by what the aircraft did last all of which was within the last 24 hours except for aircraft in MTC of course.

31 FRA-IAH Cargo
32 IAH-GRU Passenger
33 ORD-FRA Cargo
34 FRA-EWR Cargo
35 EWR-TLV Passenger
36 HKG MTC
37 IAH - scheduled to fly IAH-GRU tomorrow in passenger service
38 ORD-PVG Cargo (was canceled tonight due to MTC but the aircraft is not stored)
39 Just came out of MTC in XMN
40 LAX-HKG Cargo
41 SYD-SFO Passenger
42 EWR-ORD Cargo
43 HKG MTC
44 FRA-SFO Passenger
45 ORD-PVG Cargo
46 SFO-GUM Not sure if this is going in for MTC in China or is flying cargo
47 EWR-SFO Passenger
48 HKG-LAX Cargo or
49 EWR-IAH Passenger
50 GRU-EWR Passenger
51 AMS-EWR Cargo
52 SFO Induction
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
alasizon
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:40 am

ctrabs0114 wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
Where will UA will put all of their 77Ws and 78Js that were based out of SFO that were used for Europe and Asia?


Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.


The main reasoning for AA parking at PIT is due to the large LUS MX base in PIT. There are a large number of mechanics in PIT available to complete the storage tasks on the aircraft that are parked there.

skipness1E wrote:
Some of the lost capacity may not be needed for a VERY long time.

Some, sure. But UA was already behind domestically so they will still need a bigger percentage of their domestic capacity than DL or AA will. Even in a recession, people still travel.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
ctrabs0114
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:09 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:52 am

alasizon wrote:
ctrabs0114 wrote:
Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.


The main reasoning for AA parking at PIT is due to the large LUS MX base in PIT. There are a large number of mechanics in PIT available to complete the storage tasks on the aircraft that are parked there.


I hadn't thought about the LUS MX base at PIT, so that makes sense that some A330s would be stored there. I thought I also saw some UA jets being parked at PIT as well (or heard reports of same). Either way, it looks like we're going to see these groundings for a long time depending on if/when the curve is flattened.
2019: DAL, MCI, PHX, LAS, DFW, SAT, ORD, SLC, SEA, DTW, PHL, MIA, LAX; B73G (WN x3), B738 (WN, AA, DL), A20N (NK), MD83 (AA), B788 (AA x2), CS1 (DL), B739 (DL), B712 (DL), B752 (AA), B763 (AA), B77W (AA), B789 (AA)
Next: TBA
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:11 am

ctrabs0114 wrote:
alasizon wrote:
ctrabs0114 wrote:
Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.


The main reasoning for AA parking at PIT is due to the large LUS MX base in PIT. There are a large number of mechanics in PIT available to complete the storage tasks on the aircraft that are parked there.


I hadn't thought about the LUS MX base at PIT, so that makes sense that some A330s would be stored there. I thought I also saw some UA jets being parked at PIT as well (or heard reports of same). Either way, it looks like we're going to see these groundings for a long time depending on if/when the curve is flattened.


I don’t know of any UA aircraft being stored in PIT....perhaps express but no mainline.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
ctrabs0114
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:09 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:42 am

United1 wrote:
ctrabs0114 wrote:
I thought I also saw some UA jets being parked at PIT as well (or heard reports of same). Either way, it looks like we're going to see these groundings for a long time depending on if/when the curve is flattened.


I don’t know of any UA aircraft being stored in PIT....perhaps express but no mainline.


That seems to be the case, as all of the parked jets according to the PIT thread have been AA.
2019: DAL, MCI, PHX, LAS, DFW, SAT, ORD, SLC, SEA, DTW, PHL, MIA, LAX; B73G (WN x3), B738 (WN, AA, DL), A20N (NK), MD83 (AA), B788 (AA x2), CS1 (DL), B739 (DL), B712 (DL), B752 (AA), B763 (AA), B77W (AA), B789 (AA)
Next: TBA
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4899
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:38 am

N649DL wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I could also see this as meaning that there will be fewer long-haul routes and less seats, basically sealing the fate for the pmUA Boeing 777-200/-200ER fleet (the pmCO B772 fleet having greater capabilities) and the remaining p.s. B752s and any B763s that don't get the 167-seat configuration. That massive narrow-body fleet could also see attrition, especially in the next few years as some of the older 320s and 73Gs approaching their fourth (fifth for A320s) heavy check in a few years, especially with newer used A319s from CZ and U2 coming into the fleet that could replace them. (I see most transcon flying being on international wide-bodies, especially to and from EWR or to and from SFO.)


The 773ERs have massive capacity and likely too much for many International routes so I could see cargo flights for them for a little while and thus I think the 772ER (but sUA and sCO) with Polaris conversions will be relied upon. The 763ERs now have downtime but will be crucial in terms of "right-sizing" International capacity while things are light and working their way back up. No idea how the 764ER will hold up in this matter as 6 are parked and 10 are in service. So I'm not sure if it's going to be become a niche fleet or not or phased out. At this time there are more 763ERs in service than 764ERs.

IIRC, it's not just the sUA 757s that are stored at the moment, there are sCO frames as well: Quite a few of the older CO 1994-1995 deliveries. I could also see UA parting ways with non-ER 739, & older 73G, 738, and 320 as well.

Since many of the A320's are long in the tooth? Your prediction is not without merit. the Non ER 737's might also go. The 757-222's and 767-322's are fully amortized along with the 777-222's and early 222ER's but? Even if they are? they could still fly and profitably as they only require upkeep.
 
UnitedTristar
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:45 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:28 pm

United1 wrote:

I don’t know of any UA aircraft being stored in PIT....perhaps express but no mainline.


Yea Republic has a big Maintenance base there so some of theirs maybe parked there, flying out of IND the other day there were some Airbus and at least one 767 there

-m
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:01 pm

ctrabs0114 wrote:
alasizon wrote:
ctrabs0114 wrote:
Based on AA parking some PHL/CLT-based A330s at PIT, I wouldn't be surprised if UA ends up parking their 77W/78J fleet at smaller outstations such as MCI. My reasoning is that PIT has a lot of runway space to store widebodies; I would think that MCI is similarly sized to PIT, hence the suggestion that UA could use MCI.

I would also suspect that similar sized airports such as CVG or MEM might be candidates for storing parked planes for the short-term.


The main reasoning for AA parking at PIT is due to the large LUS MX base in PIT. There are a large number of mechanics in PIT available to complete the storage tasks on the aircraft that are parked there.


I hadn't thought about the LUS MX base at PIT, so that makes sense that some A330s would be stored there. I thought I also saw some UA jets being parked at PIT as well (or heard reports of same). Either way, it looks like we're going to see these groundings for a long time depending on if/when the curve is flattened.

The A330s line maintenance base is PHL and base maintenance is CLT and outsourced.
 
MIflyer12
Topic Author
Posts: 7754
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:04 pm

alasizon wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Some of the lost capacity may not be needed for a VERY long time.

Some, sure. But UA was already behind domestically so they will still need a bigger percentage of their domestic capacity than DL or AA will. Even in a recession, people still travel.


You're ignoring the problem. That doesn't diminish it. Anybody can fly a bunch of planes - even Norwegian Air Shuttle! The skill is to choose the network, capacity and frequency to make money. In a recession fewer people travel and the surplus capacity depresses fares. Carriers start to make cuts, reducing connectivity by frequency or destinations dropped, and that spirals. UA isn't the low-cost carrier - it relies on connectivity to get people to pay higher average fares than on WN/F9/G4/NK/AS/B6. If traffic is still off 20% a year from now UA (and all U.S. network carriers, big and small) will have to look rather different - they will have blown through the grants, the loan guarantees, and their own liquidity. They just aren't structured (in part because of labor contracts and pilot retraining requirements) to make big changes quickly.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:08 pm

United1 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
Will they continue Trans Pacific ops from EWR?


Some, of course. Why would they cut off an arm in NYC?


EWR and SFO will probably be the first two cities UA restores most of their Trans Pacific network from. I would bet that EWR will be back up and running TPAC before ORD and LAX do...certainly before IAD, DEN and IAH get their flights back.


United1 I agree with you SFO and EWR Trans Pacific will be up and running long before ORD, IAH, and DEN are restored. In fact I'm willing to bet ORD-HND doesn't launch till late October 2020 at the earliest and IAH/DEN-NRT may not return until late March 2021. However I do believe we will see LAX-HND, and LAX-PVG fairly quickly, those two routes out of LAX are huge O&D routes for UA while ORD, IAH, and DEN depended more on a mixture of connecting traffic and O&D traffic. If O&D demand is strong enough in the Southern California market I think UA will jump on the HND and PVG routes fairly quickly while LAX-NRT may not come back till late March 2021.

Looking at the South Pacific, I don't see LAX-SYD/MEL or IAH-SYD coming back till the IATA winter schedule goes into effect and even then I don't think any of these flights will be daily. I think even during the height of the season December - February SFO-SYD will be daily while LAX-SYD will go 3x weekly and IAH-SYD 4x weekly. UA's LAX-MEL route probably will come back for IATA winter but will also be a weekly flight. I think UA will do SFO-MEL 4x weekly and LAX-MEL will be 3x weekly should demand warrant it. If demand does not warrant this much capacity I think LAX-MEL remains dormant until IATA winter 2021 and either (not both) LAX or IAH-SYD will remain dormant until IATA winter 2021.

UA's to South America I think all our IAH-South America flights will be back to daily by October, I think EWR-GRU and ORD-GRU will be back hopefully daily service by late October. The real question mark is UA's IAD-GRU flight I think it may take some time before that route is restored.

UA to Europe I think the major markets will be restored at a reduced frequency if airports continue to waive the slot requirement. At EWR I think major secondary markets will be restored in July or August while the smaller secondary markets and last years new announced routes will remain suspended until the 2021 season at best. IAD/ORD - to all secondary markets will be suspended until 2021. It will be interesting to see which recently added SFO - Europe routes UA brings back in 2020 (if any) and which routes remain dormant until the 2021 season. It is certainly possible UA in 2020 only flies SFO - LHR/FRA and suspends the remaining European routes till the 2021 season. I think IAH - Europe will be restored and UA's lone LAX - LHR flight will come back. The question mark is DEN - Europe, if UA can get a waiver that allows them to suspend DEN-LHR I think UA will suspend that route until IATA spring 2021. I also think DEN-FRA will not come back until IATA spring 2021 as well.


I think this one thing we know for sure UA will have to retire some widebodies and other widebodies may be placed into long term storage because we just won't need them until IATA spring 2021 at the earliest and that all depends on how the recovery goes.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3530
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:07 pm

Also, for RJ routes, I see the end for routes to big hubs that bypass another hub along the way (such as ORD-FAT and EWR-Midwest cities not supporting mainline service). They would be instead routed toward the nearest hub.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3186
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:20 pm

NCE/VCE/PMO/NAP/CPT sadly may be off the charts for 2 solid years. Was really looking forward to taking 3 of these routes this year.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:27 pm

Yes, if we enter a Depression it may take a decade or more to recover air travel to the levels United has seen. I would venture to say UA does not need IAH, LAX, or IAD anymore. They can focus on SFO, DEN, ORD, and EWR. It is sad as UA used to be so strong in LAX and I have used UA to travel the world from LAX.


I don't see United abandoning LAX. The Los Angeles basin is such a massive catchment for both passengers and freight that I'm sorry, I just don't see it. If anything, I could see United rationalizing its services and reducing capacity at LAX if the market commands it, but a complete elimination? No, especially since United has been paying to redo man of the terminal areas. They could potentially reduce capacity at outlying smaller fields like ONT and BUR, transferring it to LAX. That would allow more connections with feeder traffic, and perhaps reduce costs my eliminating or significantly reducing staffing (amongst other savings) at those smaller airports.

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