Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
hohd
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:03 pm

DEN is also vulnerable. Southwest will not cut DEN much and Frontier has their niche there. So that leaves UA which has multiple hubs. DEN can only accommodate so many carriers and flights and as business travel goes down (for at least a year or two) it will not be able to hold on many of UA flights.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:18 pm

caribny wrote:
If sitting down in front of a laptop is all that corporations needed we would all be living in North Dakota.

You're un-tethered from a desk and can live anywhere and you choose North Dakota? You got issues... :rotfl:
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:36 pm

hohd wrote:
DEN is also vulnerable. Southwest will not cut DEN much and Frontier has their niche there. So that leaves UA which has multiple hubs. DEN can only accommodate so many carriers and flights and as business travel goes down (for at least a year or two) it will not be able to hold on many of UA flights.


I don't think so - UA learned from their mistake the last time they significantly shrunk DEN. UA serves a huge number of small West Coast/Mountain West/Great Plains destinations where DEN is a great connecting hub to get to the rest of the country. WN and F9 don't have that connecting power.

I see both UA and WN maintaining a significant presence at DEN going forward, even though there will be reductions in the near term.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:48 pm

CALMSP wrote:
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.


Any of those seem like options. Given that AA is retiring a huge number of aircraft (150+) and DL is retiring quite a few (all the MD-88/90s, and likely at least some of the 757s and 767s), I don't see how UA escapes without retirements, even if they were previously trying to catch up to the other two. I think the 772As are the most logical and likely to be retired. They can probably be backfilled on Hawai'i routes by -ER frames, which will be getting replaced by 787s on more and more international routes. The non-Polarisized 764 fleet could also be an option to backfill some HD 772 routes.

Many have speculated that the remaining PW powered 752s will be goners right away. In the short to medium term, frequencies on EWR-SFO/LAX can be reduced, or backfilled by GE powered 752s or widebodies in the increasingly unlikely case that more capacity is needed.

The 763s that haven't yet been configured with Polaris seats could easily be parked (that was, in fact, the original plan), and we'll have to see whether UA continues to have optimism regarding the large number of Polaris seats they'll need to fill on the high-J fleet. The 764s could be retired, or could be used as suggested above to fill in some Hawai'i capacity if the HD 772 fleet is indeed parked.

Domestic narrowbodies was the segment where UA was most in need of catching up to AA and DL. We'll have to see if they reverse course on this (in which case the older 319/320s or non-ER 739s do make sense as easy targets), or if they try to use this event as an opportunity to close the gap.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
codc10
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:00 pm

UA has a lot of airplanes that are approaching retirement age, and a flow of relatively low-cost used (but newer) aircraft in the pipeline that were going to augment the fleet for the time being, but can just as easily replace older airplanes as they approach HMV. New aircraft orders slated for 2021 and beyond will likely be deferred.

Sadly, most of the "customer-pleasing" projects announced in the fall (new lounges, aircraft refurbishment/reconfigurations, larger F cabins, etc.) will probably never happen. Following this, UA will be in a 2-3 year period of absolute minimum capital expenditure.
 
T5towbar
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:47 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.



Why does the Port Authority charge EWR more for operating than does JFK or LGA? I know that EWR is the most expensive airport in the nation, and the Port Authority is raising tolls and fares again. They don't have a shortage of funds, and even though there are capital projects going on (like the terminals at LGA and the new Terminal A - SIDENOTE: Today will be the last day of ops at Terminal A for the UAX operation. Everything will be consolidated to Terminal C). I just don't understand the higher rates which are probable triple or quadruple than anyone else. I just wonder if the PA is still holding some kind of grudge against UA since the "Bridgegate" episode?
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:40 pm

At EWR, there is also the Terminal A replacement project to be funded, as well as a replacement AirTrain project. UA also will not abandon a fortress hub in the largest USA market.

As for routes, I could see the end of thinner TATL flying out of EWR, except to LIS in the winter season. Fleet-wise, United has a 96-strong Boeing 777 fleet. However, it should be noted that only four B772s and the B77W fleet are younger than 19 years. I wouldn't be surprised if down the line, UA retired most of the 777 fleet (at their next heavy check) and put the newest four B772s up for sale. Then their long haul fleet would be built around the high-J B763s, B764s, B788/B789/B78X, and the B77W...the B764s doing trans-con runs as well (with these times, I could see UA getting rid of its entire Boeing 777-200/-200ER fleet, with a reduction in flying to secondary Europe and China and a top-up order for more B78X and B789s (UA is growing this fleet to 64 aircraft now; before the crisis hit; UA had 52 Dreamliners in service).
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4811
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:42 pm

United is not going to cut Denver an almost entirely domestic hub. It's their workhorse that can actually maybe make money the earliest. Domestic travel will come back way way before international.

All hubs will be small shells of their former selves for a while. Expect ramping up to take a long time. But look for places like EWR, IAH, SFO with such heavy international menus to see even more cuts out of necessity. International will be dead for a while , summer high season is already dead and companies are not going to ask employees to fly for a long time, not in 2020 or there is a vaccine. Denver is probably the safest hub for united. It's a great location in a booming market. It's also a great economical place for United to connect people here for a while. Don't look for united to dehub Denver no matter how bad finances get.
 
jumpseat67
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:07 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:27 pm

FSDan wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
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.


Many have speculated that the remaining PW powered 752s will be goners right away. In the short to medium term, frequencies on EWR-SFO/LAX can be reduced, or backfilled by GE powered 752s or widebodies in the increasingly unlikely case that more capacity is needed.


Any 752 that is non-PW or all 753s are all RR powered.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:57 pm

You guys are all discussing what routes UA is going to cut next but simply United is not allowed to cut any until Sept. 1st, 2022. It is part of the bailout that the airlines received. Daily routes have to be served at least 5x weekly while sub daily ones need to be at least 1x a week.
 
DEN1895
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:58 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.


WN did sign a lease which was great timing for DEN as they were able to get all gates leased by the beginning of March.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:03 am

United has an employee town hall hosted by Oscar and Scott on Thursday. Suppose they might announce some future plans and share more insight then.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:19 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
You guys are all discussing what routes UA is going to cut next but simply United is not allowed to cut any until Sept. 1st, 2022. It is part of the bailout that the airlines received. Daily routes have to be served at least 5x weekly while sub daily ones need to be at least 1x a week.

Good news, Looks like IAH will get to Keep MUC/SYD, and SFO, DEN, ORD, IAD EWR, LAX will not see any cuts! By 2022 the demand should have recovered by then.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:26 am

janders wrote:
United has an employee town hall hosted by Oscar and Scott on Thursday. Suppose they might announce some future plans and share more insight then.


Will it be able to the live-streamed?
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:19 am

jumpseat67 wrote:
FSDan wrote:
Many have speculated that the remaining PW powered 752s will be goners right away. In the short to medium term, frequencies on EWR-SFO/LAX can be reduced, or backfilled by GE powered 752s or widebodies in the increasingly unlikely case that more capacity is needed.


Any 752 that is non-PW or all 753s are all RR powered.


Thanks for the correction - I must have been mixing up the 752s with the 772s.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:22 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
You guys are all discussing what routes UA is going to cut next but simply United is not allowed to cut any until Sept. 1st, 2022. It is part of the bailout that the airlines received. Daily routes have to be served at least 5x weekly while sub daily ones need to be at least 1x a week.


Are you sure about that? It seems like the US3 wouldn't accept any aid if they are locked into routes with this type of rigidity... Not being able to adjust the network for 2+ years seems like a surefire way to loose lots of money. My understanding is that they aren't supposed to drop any domestic destinations in the short term, but I didn't think there was anything in there about routes.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4327
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:23 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
janders wrote:
United has an employee town hall hosted by Oscar and Scott on Thursday. Suppose they might announce some future plans and share more insight then.


Will it be able to the live-streamed?


Yes if you are an employee it will be in your email.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:00 am

FSDan wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
You guys are all discussing what routes UA is going to cut next but simply United is not allowed to cut any until Sept. 1st, 2022. It is part of the bailout that the airlines received. Daily routes have to be served at least 5x weekly while sub daily ones need to be at least 1x a week.


Are you sure about that? It seems like the US3 wouldn't accept any aid if they are locked into routes with this type of rigidity... Not being able to adjust the network for 2+ years seems like a surefire way to loose lots of money. My understanding is that they aren't supposed to drop any domestic destinations in the short term, but I didn't think there was anything in there about routes.

It's September 2020, not 2022.

DOT issued an order about this today with the required points for every carrier (if they take the money) and requesting carriers show cause if they feel they shouldn't have to fly certain points. Probably warrants it own thread...

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0037-0001
 
United1
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:10 am

FSDan wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
You guys are all discussing what routes UA is going to cut next but simply United is not allowed to cut any until Sept. 1st, 2022. It is part of the bailout that the airlines received. Daily routes have to be served at least 5x weekly while sub daily ones need to be at least 1x a week.


Are you sure about that? It seems like the US3 wouldn't accept any aid if they are locked into routes with this type of rigidity... Not being able to adjust the network for 2+ years seems like a surefire way to loose lots of money. My understanding is that they aren't supposed to drop any domestic destinations in the short term, but I didn't think there was anything in there about routes.


It requires them to continue to serve certain US cities but I don’t believe it locks them into routes just points served. No international cities are listed so really just applies to domestic operations.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
Brucekn
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:20 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:23 am

Lots of theories about how the airlines will bounce back (or not). Depending on how long this virus stuff goes on for - and my non-professional opinion is that it will take the time to develop an effective vaccine, and to get it manufactured in sufficient quantities- might determine how much this fiscal crisis looks like the Great Depression. Sure, it’s a medical crisis for now, and the financial crisis that’s it’s caused will last much longer than the medical one. Point is- some of us are old enough to have had grandparents that lived through the 1929 Great Depression. The one common identifier among these people was their reluctance to spend money- it colored their entire lives after the Great Depression. FDR’s “New Deal” (and we may need a ‘new’ “new deal”) produced such programs as the WPA, Social Security, and other programs that were designed to increase the velocity of money. Make no mistake, the consumer will be in charge, as in all recoveries from fiscal events.
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:05 am

T5towbar 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.



Why does the Port Authority charge EWR more for operating than does JFK or LGA? I know that EWR is the most expensive airport in the nation, and the Port Authority is raising tolls and fares again. They don't have a shortage of funds, and even though there are capital projects going on (like the terminals at LGA and the new Terminal A - SIDENOTE: Today will be the last day of ops at Terminal A for the UAX operation. Everything will be consolidated to Terminal C). I just don't understand the higher rates which are probable triple or quadruple than anyone else. I just wonder if the PA is still holding some kind of grudge against UA since the "Bridgegate" episode?


EWR used to be the mst expensive airport to operate from in NY area (not sure in the nation) - but over the past few years they have done extensive work to reduce that. Especially after UA applied the pressure on PANYNJ & it became public news in major news outlets. In my opinion, I saw no real rhyme or reason for it, other than the fact that they were good at wasting money. But I do know that the more airlines that fly to the airport, the lesser the cost to the other airlines - as the total cost would be split amongst more carriers.
At the moment, the cost is pretty on par with JFK.
As far as it being the most expensive in the nation - I'm pretty sure BOS is more expensive, as I've seen the costs & I was astounded.

Cedar
 
NickLAX
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:10 am

Good on UA to trim back and expect this to last, those thinking it's a short term blip are delusional. Furloughs of employees won't reverse when this calms down, this a is 12 month cycle to get within 20% of 2019 numbers. Those saying "no way" - let's revisit this in 12 months
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5717
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:17 pm

United1 wrote:

It requires them to continue to serve certain US cities but I don’t believe it locks them into routes just points served. No international cities are listed so really just applies to domestic operations.


Exactly. Say UA flies from MSN to multiple UA hubs, they can pare that down to just one hub while keeping the MSN station open. Individual routes can be chopped to the bone.
Next up: STL DEN PSP DEN STL
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:28 pm

Cedar wrote:
EWR used to be the mst expensive airport to operate from in NY area (not sure in the nation) - but over the past few years they have done extensive work to reduce that. Especially after UA applied the pressure on PANYNJ & it became public news in major news outlets. In my opinion, I saw no real rhyme or reason for it, other than the fact that they were good at wasting money. But I do know that the more airlines that fly to the airport, the lesser the cost to the other airlines - as the total cost would be split amongst more carriers.
At the moment, the cost is pretty on par with JFK.
As far as it being the most expensive in the nation - I'm pretty sure BOS is more expensive, as I've seen the costs & I was astounded.

Cedar


Not sure where you are getting your information from and perhaps you have misunderstood what we are talking about.

EWR's CPE is $26.17 no projected increase yet
BOS's CPE is $14.37 it is projected to rise to $19.77 by the year 2022
JFK's CPE is $25.41 no projected increase yet
LGA's CPE is $19.33 no projected increase yet
SFO CPE is $20.63 projected to increase to $26.70 by 2026
ORD CPE is $16.89 projected to increase to $42.83 by 2029 (Both UA and AA will raise holy hell over that increase I expect that to be totally uncompetitive come 2029)
https://dwuconsulting.com/airport-finance/large-hub/cpe

EWR also late last year raised their aviation fuel tax a tax that was originally designed to only apply to United Airlines because EWR did not want to negatively impact other carriers. UA fought back and won and the New Jersey Senate was left with 2 choices either every airline pays the higher fuel tax or no airline pays the higher fuel tax. Late last year the increase fuel tax was approved and now it effects all airlines. When you combine the high fuel tax with the CPE which happens to be the highest of any US airport EWR is the most expensive airport to operate out of since either September or October of 2019.
 
T5towbar
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:51 pm

The so called "aviation tax" is supposed to pay for the PATH extension that will connect to the EWR Rail station (NJ Transit / Amtrak). Once the new Terminal One (Terminal A) is finished next year, planning should be going forward to a new Terminal Two (Terminal B) by 2026-27. That is a very ambitious project. A new Air Train is in the works also. That is a must for any expansion since the monorail is way past it's operating lifetime. So I don't know if the CPE at EWR will stay the same or not. The PA just raised tolls (went to cashless tolls) for the GW Bridge and the tunnels again. Remember, the Freedom Tower was built with PA funds and that ate a lot of the operating budget.
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
United1
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:25 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
United1 wrote:

It requires them to continue to serve certain US cities but I don’t believe it locks them into routes just points served. No international cities are listed so really just applies to domestic operations.


Exactly. Say UA flies from MSN to multiple UA hubs, they can pare that down to just one hub while keeping the MSN station open. Individual routes can be chopped to the bone.


Reading through the show cause order:
Airlines that serve multiple cities in the same region can consolidate at one airport. (ie you could consolidate ORD and MDW operations at just one airport)
If an airline serves a city more than five times a week they must maintain at least five weekly services to the airport.
If an airline serves a city less than five times a week they must maintain at least one flight a week to that airport.
You can meet your frequency requirements from multiple cities (ie 5 weekly flights to MCO from ORD or 2 weekly flights from ORD, 2 weekly flights from IAD and 1 weekly flight from SFO to MCO meet UAs service requirement at MCO.
You do not need to maintain service on all routes as long as you maintain the required frequency. (ie you could route all traffic to MCO via IAH and stop service from ORD, EWR etc)
Only applies to domestic airports ( US and US territories and possessions)
Airlines can apply to not have to serve a point.
Service requirements run through the end of September 2020.

None of this applies to all cargo operations.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:36 pm

jayunited wrote:
ORD CPE is $16.89 projected to increase to $42.83 by 2029 (Both UA and AA will raise holy hell over that increase I expect that to be totally uncompetitive come 2029)
https://dwuconsulting.com/airport-finance/large-hub/cpe


Uncompetitive would be the understatement of the year. Even without the current fallout in the aviation industry, $42 CPE compare to ATL, DFW, CLT or even DEN would make ORD close to useless as a hub when there would be so many other options available.

The runway re-alignment project was/is expensive and huge but will pay benefits for generations. The planned Taj Mahal-type terminal projects will more than likely be looked at as an item that can (and should) be scaled back. Not necessarily in size but in design and the costs associated with design features that add bragging rights only and very little function. They're going to need to find a middle ground between these planned glass palaces and a Dulles-type temporary trailer park concourse.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:46 pm

T5towbar wrote:
The so called "aviation tax" is supposed to pay for the PATH extension that will connect to the EWR Rail station (NJ Transit / Amtrak). Once the new Terminal One (Terminal A) is finished next year, planning should be going forward to a new Terminal Two (Terminal B) by 2026-27. That is a very ambitious project. A new Air Train is in the works also. That is a must for any expansion since the monorail is way past it's operating lifetime. So I don't know if the CPE at EWR will stay the same or not. The PA just raised tolls (went to cashless tolls) for the GW Bridge and the tunnels again. Remember, the Freedom Tower was built with PA funds and that ate a lot of the operating budget.


While you mentioned the airtrain I find this interesting because the project is not talked about much. I think this is because of how poorly planned the project is. If you look at the map of the proposed airtrain it will no long serve Terminals B and C, only Terminal 1 and the future terminals 2 and 3. In the meantime a passenger bridge will be built across the parking lots. Just an interesting way of doing things lol.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:37 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
caribny wrote:
If sitting down in front of a laptop is all that corporations needed we would all be living in North Dakota.

You're un-tethered from a desk and can live anywhere and you choose North Dakota? You got issues... :rotfl:


Everyone's notion of heaven is different. I grew up in Montana and I always loved the rolling hills and wheat fields of North Dakota. It takes some stamina to live there, yes. And I love winter.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:59 pm

Rumors of a whole fleet type being parked... JayUnited you got any more info on this?
 
danipawa
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:12 pm

B772 or B767..
 
United1
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:15 pm

danipawa wrote:
B772 or B767..


The 772s are cargo haulers so probably not....unless they are specifically referring to the 772A's.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:16 pm

danipawa wrote:
B772 or B767..

I presume it will be they 767 300 fleet.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:25 pm

United1 wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:
United1 wrote:

It requires them to continue to serve certain US cities but I don’t believe it locks them into routes just points served. No international cities are listed so really just applies to domestic operations.


Exactly. Say UA flies from MSN to multiple UA hubs, they can pare that down to just one hub while keeping the MSN station open. Individual routes can be chopped to the bone.


Reading through the show cause order:
Airlines that serve multiple cities in the same region can consolidate at one airport. (ie you could consolidate ORD and MDW operations at just one airport)
If an airline serves a city more than five times a week they must maintain at least five weekly services to the airport.
If an airline serves a city less than five times a week they must maintain at least one flight a week to that airport.
You can meet your frequency requirements from multiple cities (ie 5 weekly flights to MCO from ORD or 2 weekly flights from ORD, 2 weekly flights from IAD and 1 weekly flight from SFO to MCO meet UAs service requirement at MCO.
You do not need to maintain service on all routes as long as you maintain the required frequency. (ie you could route all traffic to MCO via IAH and stop service from ORD, EWR etc)
Only applies to domestic airports ( US and US territories and possessions)
Airlines can apply to not have to serve a point.
Service requirements run through the end of September 2020.

None of this applies to all cargo operations.


This makes much more sense! I'd expect many secondary international routes to be dropped for a while, and for the domestic network to be thinned quite a bit.

I do wonder what all is considered the same "region"... I take that to mean that UA could drop SJC as a destination if they wanted to consolidate their Bay Area ops to SFO, but how about EAS type destinations? MKG isn't far from GRR... ATY isn't far from FSD... SHD isn't far from CHO...
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:29 pm

FSDan wrote:
United1 wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:

Exactly. Say UA flies from MSN to multiple UA hubs, they can pare that down to just one hub while keeping the MSN station open. Individual routes can be chopped to the bone.


Reading through the show cause order:
Airlines that serve multiple cities in the same region can consolidate at one airport. (ie you could consolidate ORD and MDW operations at just one airport)
If an airline serves a city more than five times a week they must maintain at least five weekly services to the airport.
If an airline serves a city less than five times a week they must maintain at least one flight a week to that airport.
You can meet your frequency requirements from multiple cities (ie 5 weekly flights to MCO from ORD or 2 weekly flights from ORD, 2 weekly flights from IAD and 1 weekly flight from SFO to MCO meet UAs service requirement at MCO.
You do not need to maintain service on all routes as long as you maintain the required frequency. (ie you could route all traffic to MCO via IAH and stop service from ORD, EWR etc)
Only applies to domestic airports ( US and US territories and possessions)
Airlines can apply to not have to serve a point.
Service requirements run through the end of September 2020.

None of this applies to all cargo operations.


This makes much more sense! I'd expect many secondary international routes to be dropped for a while, and for the domestic network to be thinned quite a bit.

I do wonder what all is considered the same "region"... I take that to mean that UA could drop SJC as a destination if they wanted to consolidate their Bay Area ops to SFO, but how about EAS type destinations? MKG isn't far from GRR... ATY isn't far from FSD... SHD isn't far from CHO...



Airlineroute has an update from UA posted today and looks like all EAS is staying current. There needs to always be a way to throw away money!
 
United1
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:36 pm

FSDan wrote:
United1 wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:

Exactly. Say UA flies from MSN to multiple UA hubs, they can pare that down to just one hub while keeping the MSN station open. Individual routes can be chopped to the bone.


Reading through the show cause order:
Airlines that serve multiple cities in the same region can consolidate at one airport. (ie you could consolidate ORD and MDW operations at just one airport)
If an airline serves a city more than five times a week they must maintain at least five weekly services to the airport.
If an airline serves a city less than five times a week they must maintain at least one flight a week to that airport.
You can meet your frequency requirements from multiple cities (ie 5 weekly flights to MCO from ORD or 2 weekly flights from ORD, 2 weekly flights from IAD and 1 weekly flight from SFO to MCO meet UAs service requirement at MCO.
You do not need to maintain service on all routes as long as you maintain the required frequency. (ie you could route all traffic to MCO via IAH and stop service from ORD, EWR etc)
Only applies to domestic airports ( US and US territories and possessions)
Airlines can apply to not have to serve a point.
Service requirements run through the end of September 2020.

None of this applies to all cargo operations.


This makes much more sense! I'd expect many secondary international routes to be dropped for a while, and for the domestic network to be thinned quite a bit.

I do wonder what all is considered the same "region"... I take that to mean that UA could drop SJC as a destination if they wanted to consolidate their Bay Area ops to SFO, but how about EAS type destinations? MKG isn't far from GRR... ATY isn't far from FSD... SHD isn't far from CHO...


Nothing specific that I can find showing a consolidated list but it looks like EWR/JFK/LGA, ORD/MDW and IAH/HOU are at least combined.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
Murf
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:47 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:47 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Rumors of a whole fleet type being parked... JayUnited you got any more info on this?


Not gonna lie...I got a surge of excitement that the CRJ 200 would be the fleet being parked and I wouldn't have to fly on a CRJ 200 ever again... But alas...I realize this thread is mainline focused.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:47 pm

United1 wrote:
FSDan wrote:
United1 wrote:

Reading through the show cause order:
Airlines that serve multiple cities in the same region can consolidate at one airport. (ie you could consolidate ORD and MDW operations at just one airport)
If an airline serves a city more than five times a week they must maintain at least five weekly services to the airport.
If an airline serves a city less than five times a week they must maintain at least one flight a week to that airport.
You can meet your frequency requirements from multiple cities (ie 5 weekly flights to MCO from ORD or 2 weekly flights from ORD, 2 weekly flights from IAD and 1 weekly flight from SFO to MCO meet UAs service requirement at MCO.
You do not need to maintain service on all routes as long as you maintain the required frequency. (ie you could route all traffic to MCO via IAH and stop service from ORD, EWR etc)
Only applies to domestic airports ( US and US territories and possessions)
Airlines can apply to not have to serve a point.
Service requirements run through the end of September 2020.

None of this applies to all cargo operations.


This makes much more sense! I'd expect many secondary international routes to be dropped for a while, and for the domestic network to be thinned quite a bit.

I do wonder what all is considered the same "region"... I take that to mean that UA could drop SJC as a destination if they wanted to consolidate their Bay Area ops to SFO, but how about EAS type destinations? MKG isn't far from GRR... ATY isn't far from FSD... SHD isn't far from CHO...


Nothing specific that I can find showing a consolidated list but it looks like EWR/JFK/LGA, ORD/MDW and IAH/HOU are at least combined.


MIA/FLL and the LA area airports too.
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:36 pm

FSDan wrote:
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.


Can't speak to the rest of the routes here, but FAT-ORD was moved to year-round from summer seasonal and also mainline for most of the year very quickly after introduction. It was also upguaged to A320/737-800 and even -900 aircraft on quite a few days before December of last year. I would imagine that bodes well for it to stick around as at least an E-175 for part of the year after flights begin to return.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4327
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:39 pm

Due to consistent light bag loads, UA has lifted USPS restrictions. This effectively allows UA to take as much mail as the post office wants to book. Usually for domestic flights we limit to around 2,000 lbs. some select flights we routinely take more. I am about to work a 737 with 5,000 lbs. it's not much additional revenue, but it is something.
 
KFTG
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:55 pm

The 767-300 fleet could be the "quickest" to offload to another operator. Surely Amazon would be quick to pick up any suitable frames for cargo conversion, although in UA's case theirs are all PW powered. Amazon (Atlas/ATI) seem to prefer CF6-powered frames. But if they could offload the entire fleet at once, plus spares, that might make the deal more enticing for a would-be cargo conversion. There are some operators in China who would be interested in picking them up as well, such as SF Airlines (operates a mixed engine fleet). FedEx/UPS also an option.

If the 777-200 "A" fleet is parked, they would all certainly be scrapped immediately.
 
AaronPGH
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:05 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
danipawa wrote:
B772 or B767..

I presume it will be they 767 300 fleet.


I really hope not. Those refurbished 763s are such a pleasure to fly. 752s 753s hopefully?
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:08 pm

KFTG wrote:
The 767-300 fleet could be the "quickest" to offload to another operator.


On the other hand, when traffic starts to return wouldn't it better for UA to have these smaller widebodies on the property to ramp up service with? Companies and people that absolutely have to fly might not mind paying a bit more for the extra personal space that the High-J 763s offer. UA could leave some of the newer 787s parked longer or at least used more sparingly and save on the cycles. Small crew cost savings, possibly a small savings on FA staffing, lower landing fees, fit in more gates at ORD etc.

Other than cargo capacity the 767s might be a better plane to keep in the near term.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:14 pm

CALMSP wrote:
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.


I think the 320 are gone; not so sure about the 319 since UA will actively want to downgauage some narrowbody flights coming out of this. The HD 772s will be parked but whether or not they hit the scrapyard will probably depend on how the economy looks by 2021Q1.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:29 pm

Also, I have to ask: what about the future of Air Wisconsin? They currently only fly 50-seat jets, and I expect them to be phased out except for the CRJ550 and maybe at CommutAir for EAS routes (even ExpressJet going up to 70- and 76-seat planes). I have to wonder if United Express is regretting dumping the Dash 8s.
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:53 pm

alasizon wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
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.


I think the 320 are gone; not so sure about the 319 since UA will actively want to downgauage some narrowbody flights coming out of this. The HD 772s will be parked but whether or not they hit the scrapyard will probably depend on how the economy looks by 2021Q1.

UA has been adding used 319/320s and has 50 321NEO’s on order. They aren’t getting rid of them.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2352
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:07 pm

UA444 wrote:
alasizon wrote:
CALMSP wrote:

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.


I think the 320 are gone; not so sure about the 319 since UA will actively want to downgauage some narrowbody flights coming out of this. The HD 772s will be parked but whether or not they hit the scrapyard will probably depend on how the economy looks by 2021Q1.

UA has been adding used 319/320s and has 50 321NEO’s on order. They aren’t getting rid of them.


Well, things have changed since those decisions were made (understatement of the year).

The only fleets that hadn't been receiving investment/refresh/updates (at least on the passenger side) when COVID hit were the PW-powered 752s and the 764s. Everything else was getting or just got some kind of update, be it new F seats, more F seats, new Y configuration, Polaris, etc. If UA is going to wind up a smaller carrier when this is over, something has to give, even if it's a type they just put a bunch of money into refreshing/reconfiguring/expanding.

Fleet plans made last year are no longer relevant. Those were done under the context of growth. That course got reversed in a hurry over the past few weeks.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:22 pm

AaronPGH wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
danipawa wrote:
B772 or B767..

I presume it will be they 767 300 fleet.


I really hope not. Those refurbished 763s are such a pleasure to fly. 752s 753s hopefully?


I do wonder if the remaining 752s (and not just the PW-powered ones) could be retired imminently... Looking at the types of routes these fly:

  • Transcons - could be replaced in the short term by fewer frequencies on 763s, longer term by MAX-10s and 321XLRs (allowing the 763s to transition back to international service as demand starts to pick back up)
  • DEN-Hawai'i - secondary routes to LIH/KOA could be low hanging fruit to cut, with connections routed through SFO and LAX to bolster those services
  • Secondary Transatlantic - routes could be cut (e.g. ORD-DUB, ORD-EDI, IAD-DUB, IAD-EDI, IAD-LIS, EWR-KEF, EWR-OPO, EWR-ARN), with increased gauge to the likes of DUB and EDI from EWR to make up for the dropped ORD/IAD capacity, or connections routed onto partners for the likes of OPO and ARN

UA has started reconfiguring the ex-CO 752s, but it's not the same amount of investment as has been put into the 763 fleet. I agree it would be a shame for the 763 fleet to go now, although that could still be on the table despite the recent sunk costs.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
coairman
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:31 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:22 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
United is not going to cut Denver an almost entirely domestic hub. It's their workhorse that can actually maybe make money the earliest. Domestic travel will come back way way before international.

All hubs will be small shells of their former selves for a while. Expect ramping up to take a long time. But look for places like EWR, IAH, SFO with such heavy international menus to see even more cuts out of necessity. International will be dead for a while , summer high season is already dead and companies are not going to ask employees to fly for a long time, not in 2020 or there is a vaccine. Denver is probably the safest hub for united. It's a great location in a booming market. It's also a great economical place for United to connect people here for a while. Don't look for united to dehub Denver no matter how bad finances get.


I strongly agree above......UA’s mid-continental hubs of DEN and ORD are the strongest hubs to withstand this crisis....

Bottom line......the most stable hubs will be mid continental domestic hubs .....in my opinion.
The views I express are of my own, and not the company I work for.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United will be a smaller carrier - Munoz

Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:04 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Rumors of a whole fleet type being parked... JayUnited you got any more info on this?


The fleet types that have been parked (not retired) are all the 764s, 788s and the PW 752.

Most of the 763s have been parked as well but there are still a few flying around domestically and on our singular EWR-LHR regularly schedule flight.

Also a large number of our 77Es have been parked or they are in Polaris/PE modification there are less than a handful of 77Es flying around and the ones still flying are not being used for cargo charters please see the explanation above for reasons why.

Looking at our 77HD fleet 10 frames so far have been stored (note that number includes N222UA), 10 frames remain in regular schedule service on domestic routes.

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