Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CALMSP
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:01 pm

Are people seriously thinking UA would close a hub? What has this world come to??!
 
avek00
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:48 pm

I'm thinking business travel will be especially slow to return to pre-COVID-19 levels.

United's biggest competitors are no longer AA, DL, BA, etc. -- they're Zoom, WebEx, Blackboard Collab, and a host of other SaaS tech offerings allowing businesses to successfully operate without the hassles of air travel. The outbreak has forced the holdouts to see the light. With Fortune 500s running well on SaaS platforms, post-outbreak you can be sure formerly run of the mill short stay business trips will be more closely scrutinized and discouraged compared to a year ago.​
Live life to the fullest.
 
Pi7472000
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:55 pm

avek00 wrote:
I'm thinking business travel will be especially slow to return to pre-COVID-19 levels.

United's biggest competitors are no longer AA, DL, BA, etc. -- they're Zoom, WebEx, Blackboard Collab, and a host of other SaaS tech offerings allowing businesses to successfully operate without the hassles of air travel. The outbreak has forced the holdouts to see the light. With Fortune 500s running well on SaaS platforms, post-outbreak you can be sure formerly run of the mill short stay business trips will be more closely scrutinized and discouraged compared to a year ago.​


Exactly!! Business travel for United will be down, even if we have a speedy recovery, as it is so easy to work from home in many fields and collaborate online. There is no need to travel across the country in a suit to be a productive member of the workforce. I am sure there are people who that do not have self-discipline to work from home and those people will lose their jobs. This is development of working from home and using Zoom etc for people who go back to office settings will impact the need for so many flights and routes. It is good to see the CEO recognizing this. UA probably will not have the need for so many hubs in the future.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:24 pm

CALMSP wrote:
Are people seriously thinking UA would close a hub? What has this world come to??!


On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:34 pm

FSDan wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
Are people seriously thinking UA would close a hub? What has this world come to??!


On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...

Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:36 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
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.


:checkmark: Thinking about medium term domestic route cuts, UA has quite a lot of low-hanging fruit that has been added over the last few years (both regional and mainline). There's a lot of hub overflying happening right now:
SFO-YYZ/MSY/DTW/CMH/FLL, etc.
DEN-PNS/VPS/ECP/CHS/GSP/RIC/ORF/SYR/BDL/BTV/PWM/LIH/KOA, etc.
IAH-GEG/BOI/RNO/BDL, etc.
ORD-PSC/EUG/RDM/FAT/SBA/RNO, etc.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:39 pm

tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
Are people seriously thinking UA would close a hub? What has this world come to??!


On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...

Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Agreed - with oil prices down IAH will see some cuts. I was referring mostly to the comment that UA might cut Houston because they're #3 in Latin America and therefore it's not worth keeping anymore. I'll go ahead and predict that IAH will remain UA's Latin America hub for years to come.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:46 pm

Re: Business travel recovery, there was an interesting piece on The Air Current about how business travel as a proportion of travelers has already been declining for the last few decades. A lot of that is fueled by the growth of LCCs/ULCCs and the corresponding increases in leisure traffic but the increased ubiquity of telework will probably further that trend in most places.

Frankly I'd be curious to see how this affects the continued viability of ULH and even many regular longhaul routes since business travel is so much more important to their viability than short/medium-haul routes. I'm sure the people at UA are racking their brains on that question when they have any downtime to.
 
ordbosewr
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:54 pm

Pi7472000 wrote:
avek00 wrote:
I'm thinking business travel will be especially slow to return to pre-COVID-19 levels.

United's biggest competitors are no longer AA, DL, BA, etc. -- they're Zoom, WebEx, Blackboard Collab, and a host of other SaaS tech offerings allowing businesses to successfully operate without the hassles of air travel. The outbreak has forced the holdouts to see the light. With Fortune 500s running well on SaaS platforms, post-outbreak you can be sure formerly run of the mill short stay business trips will be more closely scrutinized and discouraged compared to a year ago.​


Exactly!! Business travel for United will be down, even if we have a speedy recovery, as it is so easy to work from home in many fields and collaborate online. There is no need to travel across the country in a suit to be a productive member of the workforce. I am sure there are people who that do not have self-discipline to work from home and those people will lose their jobs. This is development of working from home and using Zoom etc for people who go back to office settings will impact the need for so many flights and routes. It is good to see the CEO recognizing this. UA probably will not have the need for so many hubs in the future.


As an employee of a large tech company and one that has worked from home for the past 20+ years, I can tell you that some companies are open to the practice and others have mixed feelings. My company has gone through phases in history of pushing both, recently we have been leaning towards co-location for many roles. Even with co-location we have many people spread out across many states and countries, remote working together can work, but it has its challenges. In many respects even if these tools work perfectly they are not as good as being in a room with people. That will always win out.
There will be a short-term decline in business travel, not so much because of the technology but because of the costs. Expenses across companies will be severely restricted until the revenue returns. The only group that will go back to traveling quickly will be sales, in many respects that is the one area that if a change happens it could be a fundamental shift in the demand model. (I don't think it will change that significantly.)
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:01 pm

I think there will be a few different pieces going on here:
a) i think a lot of business will discover that they are quite fine dealing with a decentralized organization, rather then having large standing offices with fixed rent. That will actually work in airlines favor, because distributed teams need to sync up more frequently.
b) UA's longest gate least is in DEN, and it's contractual language ties DEN traffic to percentage of overall UA traffic. Unless UA goes bankrupt, they won't be walking away from denver.
c) I think UA may really reboot itself quickly in the hope that they can establish in DEN, what DL has in ATL, if other carriers (American, Frontier, Southwest, Delta) are slow to re-establish service in Denver. UA can reboot most of it's network, except the international connections by scaling up DEN both as a East West hub, and a north south hub. North south traffic won't be ideal, but will give them time to slowly bring capacity up as the market bears in other places.

I'd really like to know if WN ended up signing that gate extension with the city of Denver before COVID hit or not. It was happening at the same time.
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:20 pm

FSDan wrote:
tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:

On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...

Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Agreed - with oil prices down IAH will see some cuts. I was referring mostly to the comment that UA might cut Houston because they're #3 in Latin America and therefore it's not worth keeping anymore. I'll go ahead and predict that IAH will remain UA's Latin America hub for years to come.

I see, but didn’t UA rebank IAH to optimize connections and to decrease its reliance to just local demand?
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
FSDan
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:39 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
FSDan wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Agreed - with oil prices down IAH will see some cuts. I was referring mostly to the comment that UA might cut Houston because they're #3 in Latin America and therefore it's not worth keeping anymore. I'll go ahead and predict that IAH will remain UA's Latin America hub for years to come.

I see, but didn’t UA rebank IAH to optimize connections and to decrease its reliance to just local demand?


Sure, but demand is down everywhere, and local traffic is still going to be the most lucrative generally. Without enough local traffic anchoring a flight, the flight is vulnerable. Expect IAH to remain a large hub for UA, but don't expect it to escape capacity cuts, or to gain any relative ground on DEN or ORD.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:50 pm

FSDan wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
FSDan wrote:

Agreed - with oil prices down IAH will see some cuts. I was referring mostly to the comment that UA might cut Houston because they're #3 in Latin America and therefore it's not worth keeping anymore. I'll go ahead and predict that IAH will remain UA's Latin America hub for years to come.

I see, but didn’t UA rebank IAH to optimize connections and to decrease its reliance to just local demand?


Sure, but demand is down everywhere, and local traffic is still going to be the most lucrative generally. Without enough local traffic anchoring a flight, the flight is vulnerable. Expect IAH to remain a large hub for UA, but don't expect it to escape capacity cuts, or to gain any relative ground on DEN or ORD.

I understand, sucks to see cutbacks but that is the reality of downturns such as this one caused by a pandemic. But IAH will get back on its feet.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6121
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:27 pm

airfrnt wrote:
I think there will be a few different pieces going on here:
a) i think a lot of business will discover that they are quite fine dealing with a decentralized organization, rather then having large standing offices with fixed rent. That will actually work in airlines favor, because distributed teams need to sync up more frequently.
b) UA's longest gate least is in DEN, and it's contractual language ties DEN traffic to percentage of overall UA traffic. Unless UA goes bankrupt, they won't be walking away from denver.
c) I think UA may really reboot itself quickly in the hope that they can establish in DEN, what DL has in ATL, if other carriers (American, Frontier, Southwest, Delta) are slow to re-establish service in Denver. UA can reboot most of it's network, except the international connections by scaling up DEN both as a East West hub, and a north south hub. North south traffic won't be ideal, but will give them time to slowly bring capacity up as the market bears in other places.

I'd really like to know if WN ended up signing that gate extension with the city of Denver before COVID hit or not. It was happening at the same time.


DEN will never be what ATL is. Ever.

It will always be a domestic powerhouse and that will lend itself to some international flying but it won’t ever be near the amount of international flyer ATL is.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6121
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:31 pm

[list=][/list]
tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
Are people seriously thinking UA would close a hub? What has this world come to??!


On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...

Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Domestically, yes IAH will no doubt see some cuts.

Internationally there really isn’t much to cut. They could easily get rid of IAH-MUC/SYD. IAH-AMS is a massive O&D market as is LHR and FRA is there for connections. Can’t see them getting rid of NRT either.

IAH is the end all be all for UAs Latin network. That will NEVER change. IAH will lose no destinations in central of South America. Maybe a regional Mexico destination or two may go but that’s it.

People on here don’t see to realize what a massive O&D market IAH is to Latin America. The biggest in the US outside Florida, NYC, and LA. Why on earth would UA even think of giving that up???

What could be more realistic is that they could basically use IAH solely for that and take away connections that don’t involve Latin America. But even then what we’re talking about is frequency reductions, not a lot of destination losses.
Last edited by LAXdude1023 on Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:42 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
[list=][/list]
tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:

On the DL version of this thread people were suggesting that MSP or DTW would be de-hubbed. The discussion here is relatively tame by comparison! Although I concede that the few comments regarding UA dropping IAH as a hub are equally ridiculous...

Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Domestically, yes IAH will no doubt see some cuts.

Internationally there really isn’t much to cut. They could easily get rid of IAH-MUC/SYD. IAH-AMS is a massive O&D market as is LHR and FRA is there for connections. Can’t see them getting rid of NRT either.

IAH is the end all be all for UAs Latin network. That will NEVER change. IAH will lose no destinations in central of South America. Maybe a regional Mexico destination or two may go but that’s it.


I actually wasn't even referring to IAH when I mentioned that. I was thinking more of IAD and LAX. But as everyone said, the lower fuel price will hurt Houston area, And I would not be surprised if capacity to south america will be down for a while.

Just don't see IAH coming out of this more important to their network than DEN or ORD.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6121
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:46 pm

tphuang wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
[list=][/list]
tphuang wrote:
Dropping hard to see, but they will definitely cut some back for a while. That should be obvious.


Domestically, yes IAH will no doubt see some cuts.

Internationally there really isn’t much to cut. They could easily get rid of IAH-MUC/SYD. IAH-AMS is a massive O&D market as is LHR and FRA is there for connections. Can’t see them getting rid of NRT either.

IAH is the end all be all for UAs Latin network. That will NEVER change. IAH will lose no destinations in central of South America. Maybe a regional Mexico destination or two may go but that’s it.


I actually wasn't even referring to IAH when I mentioned that. I was thinking more of IAD and LAX. But as everyone said, the lower fuel price will hurt Houston area, And I would not be surprised if capacity to south america will be down for a while.

Just don't see IAH coming out of this more important to their network than DEN or ORD.


More important? Probably not because domestic flying will recover quickly. But Latin America will recover more quickly than Asia or Europe and IAH will always be the gateway to that region for UA.

So yeah, IAH may be relegated to a Latin America hub with less emphasis on domestic connections. But it’ll never lose those destinations.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:54 pm

I just I hope IAH doesn't loose any destinations to Europe or Asia, I can't see them cutting SYD or MUC.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6121
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:57 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
I just I hope IAH doesn't loose any destinations to Europe or Asia, I can't see them cutting SYD or MUC.


They won’t get rid of TYO because it feeds Latin America. They might get rid of the other two.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
DALMD80
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:11 am

Will they recover?
Farewell to the Mad Dogs- the first week of June 2020 will be remembered by most of us here on A.net as the day the Mad Dogs left.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:13 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:

They won’t get rid of TYO because it feeds Latin America. They might get rid of the other two.


But do they need it now that today ANA launched its HND-IAH flight? As part of Pacific JV might just be better to let ANA handle it.

But yes overall if oil remains low, Houston will take a hit as so much of its corporate segment is tied up around the sector.
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:15 am

Pi7472000 wrote:
avek00 wrote:
I'm thinking business travel will be especially slow to return to pre-COVID-19 levels.

United's biggest competitors are no longer AA, DL, BA, etc. -- they're Zoom, WebEx, Blackboard Collab, and a host of other SaaS tech offerings allowing businesses to successfully operate without the hassles of air travel. The outbreak has forced the holdouts to see the light. With Fortune 500s running well on SaaS platforms, post-outbreak you can be sure formerly run of the mill short stay business trips will be more closely scrutinized and discouraged compared to a year ago.​


Exactly!! Business travel for United will be down, even if we have a speedy recovery, as it is so easy to work from home in many fields and collaborate online. There is no need to travel across the country in a suit to be a productive member of the workforce. I am sure there are people who that do not have self-discipline to work from home and those people will lose their jobs. This is development of working from home and using Zoom etc for people who go back to office settings will impact the need for so many flights and routes. It is good to see the CEO recognizing this. UA probably will not have the need for so many hubs in the future.


Those platforms can replace your office work to extent, with the people who sit next to you or the people in your office, but it hardly makes business travel redundant in a significant way.

Anyone who has been in an office setting knows video conferencing has been prevalent for years leading up to this, these aren't new developments.

People who traveled before for work were likely doing it for a valid reason, or else it would never be approved, I don't see how this will change moving forward.

Now will business travel come back immediately, no of course not. But IMO video conferencing apps & tools are not going to suck business travelers away in significant quantities long term.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6121
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:22 am

UPlog wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

They won’t get rid of TYO because it feeds Latin America. They might get rid of the other two.


But do they need it now that today ANA launched its HND-IAH flight? As part of Pacific JV might just be better to let ANA handle it.

But yes overall if oil remains low, Houston will take a hit as so much of its corporate segment is tied up around the sector.


Maybe not for the next six months, but long term absolutely.

It is a misnomer to say Houston’s corporate travel is tied up in oil. Houston is the ENERGY capital of the world. Energy comes in many forms. As long as people need to turn on their lights or drive their car, regardless if that’s oil, naturally gas, solar, wind, or whatever, it will be relevant.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
Cedar
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:05 am

ordbosewr wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
avek00 wrote:
I'm thinking business travel will be especially slow to return to pre-COVID-19 levels.

United's biggest competitors are no longer AA, DL, BA, etc. -- they're Zoom, WebEx, Blackboard Collab, and a host of other SaaS tech offerings allowing businesses to successfully operate without the hassles of air travel. The outbreak has forced the holdouts to see the light. With Fortune 500s running well on SaaS platforms, post-outbreak you can be sure formerly run of the mill short stay business trips will be more closely scrutinized and discouraged compared to a year ago.​


Exactly!! Business travel for United will be down, even if we have a speedy recovery, as it is so easy to work from home in many fields and collaborate online. There is no need to travel across the country in a suit to be a productive member of the workforce. I am sure there are people who that do not have self-discipline to work from home and those people will lose their jobs. This is development of working from home and using Zoom etc for people who go back to office settings will impact the need for so many flights and routes. It is good to see the CEO recognizing this. UA probably will not have the need for so many hubs in the future.


As an employee of a large tech company and one that has worked from home for the past 20+ years, I can tell you that some companies are open to the practice and others have mixed feelings. My company has gone through phases in history of pushing both, recently we have been leaning towards co-location for many roles. Even with co-location we have many people spread out across many states and countries, remote working together can work, but it has its challenges. In many respects even if these tools work perfectly they are not as good as being in a room with people. That will always win out.
There will be a short-term decline in business travel, not so much because of the technology but because of the costs. Expenses across companies will be severely restricted until the revenue returns. The only group that will go back to traveling quickly will be sales, in many respects that is the one area that if a change happens it could be a fundamental shift in the demand model. (I don't think it will change that significantly.)


@ordbosewr - you have it right. There is nothing that can replace being in a room with people. It surprises me how many people on here think that the virtual technology will take over & remove the need for business travel. A decentralized organization will still need to pull people together for metings, conferences, etc. My company could have easily done virtual conferences & they have done. But they chose to stick to 99% of them being in person. There is nothing like having the attention of your entire team or organization in the same room right in front of you - rather than virtually, asking people to mute their phones, dealing with background noise, or not having undivided attention because someoe on the other end may be typing away as you talk.
What kind of organization would you be if you never visited your other offices, factories, employees, customers, etc.

Business travel will not go away, the demand will return - these organizations are not stupid. They knew they had the option of virtual meetings before & it could help them to reduce cost - but they choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons. With the world growing ever more connected, this demand will only increase.

Cedar
 
LH658
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:35 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:36 am

I don't see much happening to IAH other than few destinations might get cut, also decrease of frequencies on certain flights. Regarding hubs like Guam, Denver, Cleveland, LAX, and IAD I can see much major cuts or changes. ORD, EWR, and SFO i doubt anything major will change then beside a few destinations cut, and decrease of frequencies on certain routes. I feel like the people will get back out there and travel for vacations. Corporate travel I am not sure, Houston will rebound obviously if oil goes back up, and it will as demand will increase, and Saudi/Russia come to a deal. Other companies probably realizing if using services like Skype, Zoom, and etc is really great tool for their business versus sending employees around the globe for meetings. Though nothing can never replace that in person touch.
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:44 am

jayunited wrote:
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'd expect IAD-BRU to come back reasonably fast for obvious reasons, even faster than IAD-FRA, although it may be operated by United or Brussels Airlines. If Africa isn't significantly affected by the virus, EWR-BRU may also come back, otherwise it may indeed be on the back burner.
 
avek00
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:54 am

LH658 wrote:
Corporate travel I am not sure, Houston will rebound obviously if oil goes back up, and it will as demand will increase, and Saudi/Russia come to a deal. Other companies probably realizing if using services like Skype, Zoom, and etc is really great tool for their business versus sending employees around the globe for meetings. Though nothing can never replace that in person touch.


Sure, there will always be some business activities best conducted in-person, and a goodly share of pre-COVID biz travel will come back over time. But given the nature of the COVID-19 related disruptions, the SaaS solutions previously considered "optional" and/or reluctantly added by many companies have quickly become a "New Normal" mainstay for continued (and very flexible) operations. Put another way, Corporate America's ability to rely primarily on SaaS connectivity was somewhat theoretical until COVID-19 made it a fact. We're watching a major business evolution take place in real time, and that's why Munoz and Kirby are very upfront about the fact United will be a smaller airline even under best case scenarios.
Live life to the fullest.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:05 pm

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 took aviation 18 months to recover from the 2008 GFC, 3 years to recover from 9/11 + SARS, and 2 years to recover from the 1990 gulf war. There is no reason to believe that this current crisis will have a lasting impact longer than that.

That said, I expect UA to hold on to IAH. It's their only hub in the south whereas AA has PHX, DFW, CLT and MIA and DL has ATL. If any airline is likely to reduce some hubs to focus cities, it's AA.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:07 pm

blueflyer wrote:
jayunited wrote:
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'd expect IAD-BRU to come back reasonably fast for obvious reasons, even faster than IAD-FRA, although it may be operated by United or Brussels Airlines. If Africa isn't significantly affected by the virus, EWR-BRU may also come back, otherwise it may indeed be on the back burner.


BRU is not a secondary market for UA or STAR. I clearly stated I expect UA to restore all major European markets however some may be at a reduced frequency. Don't cherry pick and delete the rest of the paragraph the quote above was taken from to try and make your point.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:29 pm

mxaxai wrote:
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 took aviation 18 months to recover from the 2008 GFC, 3 years to recover from 9/11 + SARS, and 2 years to recover from the 1990 gulf war. There is no reason to believe that this current crisis will have a lasting impact longer than that.

That said, I expect UA to hold on to IAH. It's their only hub in the south whereas AA has PHX, DFW, CLT and MIA and DL has ATL. If any airline is likely to reduce some hubs to focus cities, it's AA.

On top of that, the 2008 GFC was a rather slow decline, bottomed out for a while while slowly recovering (tub-shaped recession).
In this case, the bottom fell out, drastic decline; this is usually (and hopefully) followed by a steep recovery (the faster they fall, the faster they recover).

All those predictions of doom and gloom are just personal opinions; no one knows exactly what it'll look like.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3279
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:52 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
I just I hope IAH doesn't loose any destinations to Europe or Asia, I can't see them cutting SYD or MUC.


MUC and SYD are the two most vulnerable long haul routes UA flies from IAH. I'd expect SYD to be first on the chopping block (ULH flight, not a big local market, not flown daily for much of the year), with MUC next in line (notice that IAH-MUC is the only TATL 767 route from IAH while the rest are 777s - that's because it's a smaller local market, and is largely flown to offer a few more connecting opportunities to supplement FRA).

I think IAH-NRT will probably stay. Even if UA pulled this one, IAH should still continue to see at least one daily Tokyo flight between UA and NH.

The South America flights should be safe. The only one that seems remotely vulnerable is IAH-SCL (which, I believe, was the last deep South America route added at IAH). But as long as UA wants to keep serving the SCL market, they'll do so from IAH.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
tkoenig95
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:58 pm

IAH is not nearly as dependent on the oil industry as they have been in the past. Yes, the city could do more coddling to medical as they do oil, but Houston has economically changed since we last saw any type of downturn.
 
capitalflyer
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:13 pm

tphuang wrote:

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.


I would actually think this would present an opportunity to rebuild the network in the direction they were going pre COVID. That is shifting connections to IAD. ULCC's aren't in any better position to expand and the FAA has already indicated it likely won't fill all of Southwest's former schedule. If anywhere could recover demand quickly its NY/EWR. With all the cancellations, UA, indeed all airlines, has kind of a blank slate to create its ideal schedule in a planned out fashion as well as shift equipment without disrupting current operations. UA doesn't need connections at EWR to retain control of 65% of flights there. Southwest had only 2% market share. If all that flying goes to airlines other than UA, UA will not suddenly be vulnerable at EWR. They will still have 65% of flights.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:14 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
tphuang wrote:

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.


I would actually think this would present an opportunity to rebuild the network in the direction they were going pre COVID. That is shifting connections to IAD. ULCC's aren't in any better position to expand and the FAA has already indicated it likely won't fill all of Southwest's former schedule. If anywhere could recover demand quickly its NY/EWR. With all the cancellations, UA, indeed all airlines, has kind of a blank slate to create its ideal schedule in a planned out fashion as well as shift equipment without disrupting current operations. UA doesn't need connections at EWR to retain control of 65% of flights there. Southwest had only 2% market share. If all that flying goes to airlines other than UA, UA will not suddenly be vulnerable at EWR. They will still have 65% of flights.


Capitalflyer you may have a point about EWR. EWR has one of the highest CPE's in the country and it for sure is the highest among the New York City airports. Couple that with the fact that New Jersey late last year increased the fuel tax (originally NJ only wanted UA to pay the increased tax but had to change the law after UA fought back and now all airline have to pay the increased rate), all of this may have ULCC's rethinking their EWR strategy. Before COVID-19 EWR was a profitable hub for UA at one point it was UA's most profitable hub. But as a result of the increased CPE and the higher taxes on fuel both DEN and IAD were able to overtake EWR in terms of profitability. I think prior to COVID-19 EWR had slipped to 4th in profitability behind our SFO hub.

I think UA should take advantage of this opportunity and focus EWR more on O&D traffic while shifting more connecting traffic to IAD.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:01 pm

jayunited wrote:

I think UA should take advantage of this opportunity and focus EWR more on O&D traffic while shifting more connecting traffic to IAD.


I could not agree more. CPE aside, having a domestic-to-domestic hub that is so prone to delays and eventual cancellations doesn't make as much sense when having a facility like IAD is available. UA can just about 'free-flow' almost any amount of aircraft in and out of IAD on just about any day.

For the Int'l destinations that UA serves from EWR but not IAD, then there needs to be options but IAD is no slouch when it comes to a fairly good selection of Int'l cities.

Honestly, I hope EWR (or SFO for that matter) never return to the traffic numbers they had in recent memory. The facilities were so over scheduled on so many occasions that it had a huge negative affect on UAs operation. I agree with some that said this whole virus fiasco will give airlines a free pass to make some wholesale changes that they probably would have liked to do earlier but didn't want to blink first.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5071
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:07 pm

jayunited wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
tphuang wrote:

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.


I would actually think this would present an opportunity to rebuild the network in the direction they were going pre COVID. That is shifting connections to IAD. ULCC's aren't in any better position to expand and the FAA has already indicated it likely won't fill all of Southwest's former schedule. If anywhere could recover demand quickly its NY/EWR. With all the cancellations, UA, indeed all airlines, has kind of a blank slate to create its ideal schedule in a planned out fashion as well as shift equipment without disrupting current operations. UA doesn't need connections at EWR to retain control of 65% of flights there. Southwest had only 2% market share. If all that flying goes to airlines other than UA, UA will not suddenly be vulnerable at EWR. They will still have 65% of flights.


Capitalflyer you may have a point about EWR. EWR has one of the highest CPE's in the country and it for sure is the highest among the New York City airports. Couple that with the fact that New Jersey late last year increased the fuel tax (originally NJ only wanted UA to pay the increased tax but had to change the law after UA fought back and now all airline have to pay the increased rate), all of this may have ULCC's rethinking their EWR strategy. Before COVID-19 EWR was a profitable hub for UA at one point it was UA's most profitable hub. But as a result of the increased CPE and the higher taxes on fuel both DEN and IAD were able to overtake EWR in terms of profitability. I think prior to COVID-19 EWR had slipped to 4th in profitability behind our SFO hub.

I think UA should take advantage of this opportunity and focus EWR more on O&D traffic while shifting more connecting traffic to IAD.


For all the talk of EWR focusing more on O&D, it still relies on a lot of connecting traffic. And with new york area likely to be down for a while, UA is going to need the connection to keep its number of flights up to keep the ULCCs out. It does face quite a bit of competition in the NY/NJ market.

I will say this, if UA leaves enough "slots" open at EWR for a few years, B6 will definitely build up its operations there.

I could be entirely wrong here, but I just see IAD falling back in UA's priorities coming out of this. It's going to be DEN/ORD first and the coastal hubs will be smaller. Will EWR/SFO even be back to the same size by 2022 given the likely slow recovery in TATL/TPAC traffic?
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:15 pm

tphuang wrote:
jayunited wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:

I would actually think this would present an opportunity to rebuild the network in the direction they were going pre COVID. That is shifting connections to IAD. ULCC's aren't in any better position to expand and the FAA has already indicated it likely won't fill all of Southwest's former schedule. If anywhere could recover demand quickly its NY/EWR. With all the cancellations, UA, indeed all airlines, has kind of a blank slate to create its ideal schedule in a planned out fashion as well as shift equipment without disrupting current operations. UA doesn't need connections at EWR to retain control of 65% of flights there. Southwest had only 2% market share. If all that flying goes to airlines other than UA, UA will not suddenly be vulnerable at EWR. They will still have 65% of flights.


Capitalflyer you may have a point about EWR. EWR has one of the highest CPE's in the country and it for sure is the highest among the New York City airports. Couple that with the fact that New Jersey late last year increased the fuel tax (originally NJ only wanted UA to pay the increased tax but had to change the law after UA fought back and now all airline have to pay the increased rate), all of this may have ULCC's rethinking their EWR strategy. Before COVID-19 EWR was a profitable hub for UA at one point it was UA's most profitable hub. But as a result of the increased CPE and the higher taxes on fuel both DEN and IAD were able to overtake EWR in terms of profitability. I think prior to COVID-19 EWR had slipped to 4th in profitability behind our SFO hub.

I think UA should take advantage of this opportunity and focus EWR more on O&D traffic while shifting more connecting traffic to IAD.


For all the talk of EWR focusing more on O&D, it still relies on a lot of connecting traffic. And with new york area likely to be down for a while, UA is going to need the connection to keep its number of flights up to keep the ULCCs out. It does face quite a bit of competition in the NY/NJ market.

I will say this, if UA leaves enough "slots" open at EWR for a few years, B6 will definitely build up its operations there.

I could be entirely wrong here, but I just see IAD falling back in UA's priorities coming out of this. It's going to be DEN/ORD first and the coastal hubs will be smaller. Will EWR/SFO even be back to the same size by 2022 given the likely slow recovery in TATL/TPAC traffic?


While this may be like comparing apples to oranges, but UA got rid of so many connections from EWR that EWR’s O&D is about 3/4s while JFK is between 1/2 and 2/3rds.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:45 pm

tphuang wrote:

For all the talk of EWR focusing more on O&D, it still relies on a lot of connecting traffic. And with new york area likely to be down for a while, UA is going to need the connection to keep its number of flights up to keep the ULCCs out. It does face quite a bit of competition in the NY/NJ market.

I will say this, if UA leaves enough "slots" open at EWR for a few years, B6 will definitely build up its operations there.

I could be entirely wrong here, but I just see IAD falling back in UA's priorities coming out of this. It's going to be DEN/ORD first and the coastal hubs will be smaller. Will EWR/SFO even be back to the same size by 2022 given the likely slow recovery in TATL/TPAC traffic?


I don't think the ULCCs will be able to compete at EWR simply because the cost of doing business at EWR is now higher that it was in early 2019. If we look at WN and what happened to them at EWR, UA did not run WN out of EWR, WN left UA EWR of their own accord and I think the higher operating cost at EWR had a lot to do with that decision. If WN which has a lower operational cost than UA left EWR, I don't see how airlines like NK and F9 can pose an serious challenge to UA because with those bottom of the barrel fares they are not covering their operational cost at EWR.

I could be wrong but I believe EWR is now the most expensive airport to operate out of in the U.S. and that does not mesh well with the ULCC model.

United has hubs in great locations I hope we use this an an opportunity to balance out our flying. Pre-COVID-19 both SFO and EWR were completely over scheduled and the ripple effect of over scheduling could be felt systemwide. UA has hubs at IAD, LAX, and DEN that can take some of the burden off those hubs. If we better utilize our resources (hubs) we could greatly improve or on-time performance and our completion factor. UA will never have an ATL or a DFW, at everyone of our domestic hubs we are going to have to compete against airlines but we need to be smart and not shoot ourselves in the foot by over scheduling delay prone hubs like EWR and SFO when we have other hubs that can pick up the slack.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:59 pm

jayunited wrote:
tphuang wrote:

For all the talk of EWR focusing more on O&D, it still relies on a lot of connecting traffic. And with new york area likely to be down for a while, UA is going to need the connection to keep its number of flights up to keep the ULCCs out. It does face quite a bit of competition in the NY/NJ market.

I will say this, if UA leaves enough "slots" open at EWR for a few years, B6 will definitely build up its operations there.

I could be entirely wrong here, but I just see IAD falling back in UA's priorities coming out of this. It's going to be DEN/ORD first and the coastal hubs will be smaller. Will EWR/SFO even be back to the same size by 2022 given the likely slow recovery in TATL/TPAC traffic?


I don't think the ULCCs will be able to compete at EWR simply because the cost of doing business at EWR is now higher that it was in early 2019. If we look at WN and what happened to them at EWR, UA did not run WN out of EWR, WN left UA EWR of their own accord and I think the higher operating cost at EWR had a lot to do with that decision. If WN which has a lower operational cost than UA left EWR, I don't see how airlines like NK and F9 can pose an serious challenge to UA because with those bottom of the barrel fares they are not covering their operational cost at EWR.

I could be wrong but I believe EWR is now the most expensive airport to operate out of in the U.S. and that does not mesh well with the ULCC model.

United has hubs in great locations I hope we use this an an opportunity to balance out our flying. Pre-COVID-19 both SFO and EWR were completely over scheduled and the ripple effect of over scheduling could be felt systemwide. UA has hubs at IAD, LAX, and DEN that can take of the burden off those hubs. If we better utilize our resources (hubs) we could greatly improve or on-time performance and our completion factor. UA will never have an ATL or a DFW, at everyone of our domestic hubs we are going to have to compete against airlines but we need to be smart and not shoot ourselves in the foot by over scheduling delay prone hubs like EWR and SFO when we have other hubs that can pick up the slack.


EWR is indeed the highest costing airport in the US and they did just raise the prices again. While I know that UA didn’t force WN out of EWR, is it true they aren’t really so accepting to new entrants? It was rumored that TK was trying to get in for years and UA kept blocking it when it was showed to the PANYNJ and/or DOT?

Now you did mentioned how LCC’s aren’t making too much if anything from EWR but I’m not so sure if that’s true because honestly they aren’t charging LCC fares from EWR. They are typically only around $20 cheaper than United. Is it possible for carriers like NK and F9 to expand at EWR with UA being there?
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:17 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
jayunited wrote:
tphuang wrote:

For all the talk of EWR focusing more on O&D, it still relies on a lot of connecting traffic. And with new york area likely to be down for a while, UA is going to need the connection to keep its number of flights up to keep the ULCCs out. It does face quite a bit of competition in the NY/NJ market.

I will say this, if UA leaves enough "slots" open at EWR for a few years, B6 will definitely build up its operations there.

I could be entirely wrong here, but I just see IAD falling back in UA's priorities coming out of this. It's going to be DEN/ORD first and the coastal hubs will be smaller. Will EWR/SFO even be back to the same size by 2022 given the likely slow recovery in TATL/TPAC traffic?


I don't think the ULCCs will be able to compete at EWR simply because the cost of doing business at EWR is now higher that it was in early 2019. If we look at WN and what happened to them at EWR, UA did not run WN out of EWR, WN left UA EWR of their own accord and I think the higher operating cost at EWR had a lot to do with that decision. If WN which has a lower operational cost than UA left EWR, I don't see how airlines like NK and F9 can pose an serious challenge to UA because with those bottom of the barrel fares they are not covering their operational cost at EWR.

I could be wrong but I believe EWR is now the most expensive airport to operate out of in the U.S. and that does not mesh well with the ULCC model.

United has hubs in great locations I hope we use this an an opportunity to balance out our flying. Pre-COVID-19 both SFO and EWR were completely over scheduled and the ripple effect of over scheduling could be felt systemwide. UA has hubs at IAD, LAX, and DEN that can take of the burden off those hubs. If we better utilize our resources (hubs) we could greatly improve or on-time performance and our completion factor. UA will never have an ATL or a DFW, at everyone of our domestic hubs we are going to have to compete against airlines but we need to be smart and not shoot ourselves in the foot by over scheduling delay prone hubs like EWR and SFO when we have other hubs that can pick up the slack.


EWR is indeed the highest costing airport in the US and they did just raise the prices again. While I know that UA didn’t force WN out of EWR, is it true they aren’t really so accepting to new entrants? It was rumored that TK was trying to get in for years and UA kept blocking it when it was showed to the PANYNJ and/or DOT?

Now you did mentioned how LCC’s aren’t making too much if anything from EWR but I’m not so sure if that’s true because honestly they aren’t charging LCC fares from EWR. They are typically only around $20 cheaper than United. Is it possible for carriers like NK and F9 to expand at EWR with UA being there?


NK wants in and were looking at filing a lawsuit as the slots from WN exit did not get reallocated.
 
N649DL
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:21 am

strfyr51 wrote:
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.


There are quite a few UA A320s delivered in the early 1990s that I would think they can part ways with. For an A320, those are old to keep around regardless of the virus. I have no idea what they'll do with the 757-222 or 757-224 as many seem to be grounded right now. The 763ERs, are likely (and with recent life extension and Polaris installations) the smallest by capacity and best set for gradually re-starting TATL ops. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept all of them around and ditch high cycle 777s as a result which haven't been converted to Polaris yet. I personally believe the HD 777s that are domestic should be converted to all cargo operations as the demand on those high-density configurations isn't going to return for a long time. That fleet is the most at risk for permanent grounding.
 
United1
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:38 am

CALMSP wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
jayunited wrote:

I don't think the ULCCs will be able to compete at EWR simply because the cost of doing business at EWR is now higher that it was in early 2019. If we look at WN and what happened to them at EWR, UA did not run WN out of EWR, WN left UA EWR of their own accord and I think the higher operating cost at EWR had a lot to do with that decision. If WN which has a lower operational cost than UA left EWR, I don't see how airlines like NK and F9 can pose an serious challenge to UA because with those bottom of the barrel fares they are not covering their operational cost at EWR.

I could be wrong but I believe EWR is now the most expensive airport to operate out of in the U.S. and that does not mesh well with the ULCC model.

United has hubs in great locations I hope we use this an an opportunity to balance out our flying. Pre-COVID-19 both SFO and EWR were completely over scheduled and the ripple effect of over scheduling could be felt systemwide. UA has hubs at IAD, LAX, and DEN that can take of the burden off those hubs. If we better utilize our resources (hubs) we could greatly improve or on-time performance and our completion factor. UA will never have an ATL or a DFW, at everyone of our domestic hubs we are going to have to compete against airlines but we need to be smart and not shoot ourselves in the foot by over scheduling delay prone hubs like EWR and SFO when we have other hubs that can pick up the slack.


EWR is indeed the highest costing airport in the US and they did just raise the prices again. While I know that UA didn’t force WN out of EWR, is it true they aren’t really so accepting to new entrants? It was rumored that TK was trying to get in for years and UA kept blocking it when it was showed to the PANYNJ and/or DOT?

Now you did mentioned how LCC’s aren’t making too much if anything from EWR but I’m not so sure if that’s true because honestly they aren’t charging LCC fares from EWR. They are typically only around $20 cheaper than United. Is it possible for carriers like NK and F9 to expand at EWR with UA being there?


NK wants in and were looking at filing a lawsuit as the slots from WN exit did not get reallocated.


I guess I'm confused as NK already serves EWR and the airport isn't slot controlled.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:51 am

United1 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:

EWR is indeed the highest costing airport in the US and they did just raise the prices again. While I know that UA didn’t force WN out of EWR, is it true they aren’t really so accepting to new entrants? It was rumored that TK was trying to get in for years and UA kept blocking it when it was showed to the PANYNJ and/or DOT?

Now you did mentioned how LCC’s aren’t making too much if anything from EWR but I’m not so sure if that’s true because honestly they aren’t charging LCC fares from EWR. They are typically only around $20 cheaper than United. Is it possible for carriers like NK and F9 to expand at EWR with UA being there?


NK wants in and were looking at filing a lawsuit as the slots from WN exit did not get reallocated.


I guess I'm confused as NK already serves EWR and the airport isn't slot controlled.


They really want to expand at EWR. Their 2 gates aren’t cutting it for them any probably want around 4 to be competitive in the EWR market.
 
KFTG
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:56 am

N649DL wrote:
I personally believe the HD 777s that are domestic should be converted to all cargo operations as the demand on those high-density configurations isn't going to return for a long time.

There is no such conversion currently. The cost to convert and then rectify these old 777s as cargo planes would likely be enormous. On every level these aircraft are no where near as capable as the 777 freighter in terms of capacity, engine thrust, etc. In fact, nearly every 777 retired/scrapped thus far has been these "A" market, non-ER aircraft - see JL, NH, et al. examples.
 
caribny
Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:47 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:55 pm

ordbosewr wrote:

In many respects even if these tools work perfectly they are not as good as being in a room with people. That will always win out.
There will be a short-term decline in business travel, not so much because of the technology but because of the costs. Expenses across companies will be severely restricted until the revenue returns. The only group that will go back to traveling quickly will be sales, in many respects that is the one area that if a change happens it could be a fundamental shift in the demand model. (I don't think it will change that significantly.)



If sitting down in front of a laptop is all that corporations needed we would all be living in North Dakota. There is a reason why large metro areas remain popular, despite the high costs. There are externalities to face to face interactions. Creativity and innovation is enhanced in these environments.

There will be less business travel and that which exists will need to be justified, but humans remain social creatures, and reaching out and touching is still important. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many people reacting against "shelter in place". I do see the large conventions becoming rarer.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:01 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
They really want to expand at EWR. Their 2 gates aren’t cutting it for them any probably want around 4 to be competitive in the EWR market.


Spirit just suspended all operations in Connecticut, New Jersy and New York. I know this is COVID-19 related and they are saying this is in response to the CDC advisory but it really is about preserving cash and it is expensive to operate out of airports in these states.

Also more companies (non aviation companies) announced massive numbers of layoffs this week as more business shutter as a result of COVID-19. Once the pandemic portion of this crisis is over I agree business travel will be down, however white collar and upper middle class Americans will be looking to get out and travel and many will have the funds to do it. As in any economic downturn the last people to benefit and see their jobs and wages restored are middle and lower income Americans because keep in mind not all companies in America were bailout, which means some of these companies in order to survive will have to cut their employees wages.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way because I mean no disrespect to anyone. But middle and lower income Americans is NK's bread and butter passenger. Whereas UA's customer are those former or perhaps current business travelers and upper middle class Americans. UA's customers may have the financial means to take a vacation a lot sooner and their consumer confidence may be higher than NK's customer base. That could make for real problem for NK especially at airports like EWR which has the highest operating cost in America. Whether people like Trump or not is irrelevant but the under the Trump economy most people were doing well and wages were on the rise for most working Americans. This helped contribute to NK's and F9's expansion while at the same time more traditional airlines like AA, DL, UA and WN were able to grow. No matter a customers price point was commercial flying was extremely affordable. Flying will still be extremely affordable once this crisis is over but will middle and lower income American's who had the money to fly do to an increase in wages prior to COVID-19 still have the money and the consumer confidence to fly after the worst of the crisis is behind us? Or will they be trying to catch up on their bills? Keeping in mind in some cases either the federal government, state government, or local government has issues some type of guidance requesting companies to defer collections on many consumer bills but not outright forgiveness for the next 3-6 months. Deferment and not forgiving bills like mortgage, rent, utilities, credit card payment, student loans, could have a huge impact on the discretionary funds that NK or F9 passengers would have used to purchase a flight prior to COVID-19.

It will be interesting to see how non-aviation companies respond once this crisis is over if these companies fully restore the jobs and wages to middle and lower income Americans then airlines like NK and F9 will certainly benefit and their recovery will be much quicker. However if companies use this as a means to cut middle and lower income Americans jobs and reduce wages it will have a trickle down effect and that most certainly will impact the recovery time for these airlines.
 
danipawa
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:04 pm

So United the only big US with no retirements?
 
Austin787
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:28 pm

danipawa wrote:
So United the only big US with no retirements?

United hasn't announced any retirements yet. Since United will be a smaller airline, it's likely they will retire some planes.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:34 pm

What aircraft could UA retire? Non ER 739s, will we see the 764s go? Or some of the 772s?
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:45 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
What aircraft could UA retire? Non ER 739s, will we see the 764s go? Or some of the 772s?


I'd imagine it will be old 319/320. Same with the 764s, as other stated, the HD 772A are probably going to be the chopping block.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2nd2none, A3501041, Andy33, Asiaflyer, atcs89, Baidu [Spider], BAVol, cnunn, DC2002, EIBPI, ERJ170, Flanker7, Galore, Gemuser, LH982, Majestic-12 [Bot], myki, Noshow, overcast, OzarkD9S, PlymSpotter, Someone83, SRQLOT, sunking737, tomaheath, WAC, ZKSUJ and 387 guests

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