73X wrote:

Oops sorry guys, looked legit at first glance.

Titles are off and not the proper sizing for the updated version

If they ever do a Saul Bass retro, I hope they put the Tulip next to the titles on the starboard side in the correct orientation.

UA444 wrote:

73X wrote:

Oops sorry guys, looked legit at first glance.

Titles are off and not the proper sizing for the updated version

If they ever do a Saul Bass retro, I hope they put the Tulip next to the titles on the starboard side in the correct orientation.

While I wish it was true, the logo between 1R and 2R obviously suggests otherwise

STT757 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Maybe with all the IAD growth the airport will see some TLC?

United Airlines in Talks With Dulles Airport to Make Overdue Concourse Upgrades - Airline Weekly

United Airlines and the operator of Washington Dulles International Airport are in talks over a potential multi-billion dollar upgrade that could see the airport’s widely derided Concourse C/D finally replaced.

The project, which Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) CEO Jack Potter told Airline Weekly is in a “conceptual” phase, would replace the 46-gate C/D facility with a modern structure in phases.

The stars are certainly aligning for IAD, Metro Silver Line Phase II should be opening this Spring. The regional economy continues to boom, I would think IAD would benefit somewhat from Amazon's growth as not all the demand will be met by DCA. And the infrastructure bill has money specially for such airport projects. The trick is to build a facility worthy of the Capitol of the United States and a growing affluent Northern Virginia without raising the CPE too much. Could everything be under on roof, or would the Express operation be somewhere else for instance like the Z gates? Would IAD benefit for a real concourse layout like DEN with A, B, C concourses. A would need to be developed into a real concourse connected to the main terminal.

Maybe a 3 concourse layout would be good eventually, but if they just replicated A/B in place of C/D, the airport would be world class. If they extend the U train layout to concourse D, they would have double the capacity of DEN's train. Even better if they would extend the pedestrian tunnel from A/B to the new C/D. They could also add more to the Z gates.

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

cosyr wrote:

Maybe a 3 concourse layout would be good eventually, but if they just replicated A/B in place of C/D, the airport would be world class.

Any new concourse needs to be similar to the existing "nice" concourses. Don't create a mish-mash of different-looking terminals like ORD is going to do. IAD's A/B is actually very functional and appealing. Stick with what works. (that's what I'll say if the IAD planners ask me)

jplatts wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

Yeah I know I'm just saying it would've been better if UA operated a FRA/MUC frequency on its own metal. It probably will happen in the near future or when T9 comes online in 2026.

jplatts wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

I could be completely wrong, but didn't UA try LAX-FRA at one point, maybe about 20 years ago? I want to say they even did LAX-CDG, though I may just be confusing that with SFO-CDG.

The LAX hub is not quite what it was in its prime in the 2000s, but it's still a decent operation. I'm willing to bet Scott Kirby's United won't want to let LAX slip away, as much of a bloodbath as it is for everyone.

intotheair wrote:

jplatts wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

I could be completely wrong, but didn't UA try LAX-FRA at one point, maybe about 20 years ago? I want to say they even did LAX-CDG, though I may just be confusing that with SFO-CDG.

The LAX hub is not quite what it was in its prime in the 2000s, but it's still a decent operation. I'm willing to bet Scott Kirby's United won't want to let LAX slip away, as much of a bloodbath as it is for everyone.

Yeah Scott Kirby is definitely not giving up on LAX. In fact, he's actually eager to expand. Part of the reason why LAX got T9 on the ATMP project was due to Kirby lobbying LAWA for facility space. UA definitely did try LAX-FRA before but it didn't work out that well due to facility constraints and the significant downsizing of LAX. This definitely isn't Smisek's United where he just gave up on LAX and IAD just because they "were too competitive" or the Munoz's United where the entire emphasis was on EWR/SFO and the other hubs were on the backburner. I think Kirby's strategy is to maximize EWR/IAD/DEN/SFO before he works on IAH and LAX. EWR/IAD/DEN/SFO already have infrastructure in place that isn't quite maximized while LAX and IAH are working on facility upgrades such as T9(LAX) and MLIT(IAH).

portola2727 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

Yeah I know I'm just saying it would've been better if UA operated a FRA/MUC frequency on its own metal. It probably will happen in the near future or when T9 comes online in 2026.

Just remember that UA and LH are in a full anti-trust approved transatlantic joint venture (JV) that's "metal neutral" and it will all make sense. Don't confuse the structure of this JV with other airlines traditional code share agreements as it's far, far deeper.

As far as transatlantic flying is concerned, UA and LH have pretty much already merged in almost every sense except employee groups and paint jobs. The JV sets pricing, inventory, and frequency while the operating carrier is reimbursed for actually operating the flight. Otherwise, all the expenses and revenues are shared.

As a result, to the bean counters and network folks that's a UA flight between LAX and FRA and the paint on the outside of the airplane is immaterial.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

Yeah I know I'm just saying it would've been better if UA operated a FRA/MUC frequency on its own metal. It probably will happen in the near future or when T9 comes online in 2026.

Just remember that UA and LH are in a full anti-trust approved transatlantic joint venture (JV) that's "metal neutral" and it will all make sense. Don't confuse the structure of this JV with other airlines traditional code share agreements as it's far, far deeper.

As far as transatlantic flying is concerned, UA and LH have pretty much already merged in almost every sense except employee groups and paint jobs. The JV sets pricing, inventory, and frequency while the operating carrier is reimbursed for actually operating the flight. Otherwise, all the expenses and revenues are shared.

As a result, to the bean counters and network folks that's a UA flight between LAX and FRA and the paint on the outside of the airplane is immaterial.

Isn’t Air Canada also part of this transatlantic JV?

jetmatt777 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

Yeah I know I'm just saying it would've been better if UA operated a FRA/MUC frequency on its own metal. It probably will happen in the near future or when T9 comes online in 2026.

Just remember that UA and LH are in a full anti-trust approved transatlantic joint venture (JV) that's "metal neutral" and it will all make sense. Don't confuse the structure of this JV with other airlines traditional code share agreements as it's far, far deeper.

As far as transatlantic flying is concerned, UA and LH have pretty much already merged in almost every sense except employee groups and paint jobs. The JV sets pricing, inventory, and frequency while the operating carrier is reimbursed for actually operating the flight. Otherwise, all the expenses and revenues are shared.

As a result, to the bean counters and network folks that's a UA flight between LAX and FRA and the paint on the outside of the airplane is immaterial.

Isn’t Air Canada also part of this transatlantic JV?

Yes. I'm also not sure if the terms are as free as any airline choosing to fly whatever route they want and sharing all the revenue. I seem to recall a report saying that Scott Kirby had the terms renegotiated. Originally, UA was at a disadvantage to how many more routes they could add, but after they redid the terms, UA was able to launch more routes on their own metal like SFO-ZRH and DEN-FRA. Maybe someone else has better details on this.

Can confirm Mesa e175s are starting to get the evoblue paint job with N88301 getting repainted recently. N87302 should be next on the list in MCN right now.

Just saw N73278, a 737-800 flying NRT - XMN - NRT. Was this shuttling pilots to NRT or something else?

Pinto wrote:

Just saw N73278, a 737-800 flying NRT - XMN - NRT. Was this shuttling pilots to NRT or something else?

It was moving crews from GUM to XMN.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Isn’t Air Canada also part of this transatlantic JV?

Air Canada (including Rouge), Austrian, Brussels, Lufthansa, Swiss, and United are in the A++ JV. Air Dolomiti, Edelweiss, and the various Eurowings airlines are outside the JV but are United codeshare partners.

N27263 737MAX8 is scheduled to be delivered today F2710. However it’s still not showing on flightaware. Scheduled to leave BFI in 2 hours

redrooster3 wrote:

Can confirm Mesa e175s are starting to get the evoblue paint job with N88301 getting repainted recently. N87302 should be next on the list in MCN right now.

How long does it take to paint an E-jet?

portola2727 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

jplatts wrote:

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

I could be completely wrong, but didn't UA try LAX-FRA at one point, maybe about 20 years ago? I want to say they even did LAX-CDG, though I may just be confusing that with SFO-CDG.

The LAX hub is not quite what it was in its prime in the 2000s, but it's still a decent operation. I'm willing to bet Scott Kirby's United won't want to let LAX slip away, as much of a bloodbath as it is for everyone.

Yeah Scott Kirby is definitely not giving up on LAX. In fact, he's actually eager to expand. Part of the reason why LAX got T9 on the ATMP project was due to Kirby lobbying LAWA for facility space. UA definitely did try LAX-FRA before but it didn't work out that well due to facility constraints and the significant downsizing of LAX. This definitely isn't Smisek's United where he just gave up on LAX and IAD just because they "were too competitive" or the Munoz's United where the entire emphasis was on EWR/SFO and the other hubs were on the backburner. I think Kirby's strategy is to maximize EWR/IAD/DEN/SFO before he works on IAH and LAX. EWR/IAD/DEN/SFO already have infrastructure in place that isn't quite maximized while LAX and IAH are working on facility upgrades such as T9(LAX) and MLIT(IAH).

IAH and LAX are in different spots.

Where international expansion is concerned, IAH has been relegated to being the Latin America hub for UA (minus the Caribbean). The only Latin American flights that have been added from other hubs are ones that can be supported mainly from O&D. Markets like GIG, EZE, UIO, and LIM only consistently work from IAH. Beyond that it does serve as a domestic connector. IAH is a very large international market in itself so flights outside that region like LHR and AMS require very little in the way of connections. FRA, MUC, and NRT do typically fill with beyond connections but with JV partners it works well. Do I think there is more for UA to do at IAH? Yes, but beyond one more flight to Europe (like CDG or ZRH) what I really want to see UA is step up their domestic game at IAH. Adding destinations like GSO, LEX, FSD, etc. would be very welcome.

LAX is largely an O&D operation. While there are some connections to Hawaii, Australia, Asia, and the Western US, UA typically favors SFO for those. I think LAX will get more expansion as time goes on, but UA seems to prefer letting JV partners do the heavy lifting at LAX as opposed to a combo like SFO and ORD. I think adding LAX-FRA is a very reasonable move. I dont see UA boosting LAX on a domestic level and I do think whatever comes will be international.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Where international expansion is concerned, IAH has been relegated to being the Latin America hub for UA (minus the Caribbean). The only Latin American flights that have been added from other hubs are ones that can be supported mainly from O&D. Markets like GIG, EZE, UIO, and LIM only consistently work from IAH. Beyond that it does serve as a domestic connector. IAH is a very large international market in itself so flights outside that region like LHR and AMS require very little in the way of connections. FRA, MUC, and NRT do typically fill with beyond connections but with JV partners it works well. Do I think there is more for UA to do at IAH? Yes, but beyond one more flight to Europe (like CDG or ZRH) what I really want to see UA is step up their domestic game at IAH. Adding destinations like GSO, LEX, FSD, etc. would be very welcome.

LAX is largely an O&D operation. While there are some connections to Hawaii, Australia, Asia, and the Western US, UA typically favors SFO for those. I think LAX will get more expansion as time goes on, but UA seems to prefer letting JV partners do the heavy lifting at LAX as opposed to a combo like SFO and ORD. I think adding LAX-FRA is a very reasonable move. I dont see UA boosting LAX on a domestic level and I do think whatever comes will be international.

Agree that United needs to keep building its domestic operation at IAH. In terms of connectivity and schedule, it's weak compared to DFW and more circuitous than DEN for E-W connections on UA. IAH needs to increase its portfolio of destinations, upgauge out of such 50-seater dependency, and continue to grow/add banks. The natural offshoot of that is the ability to support more international flying.

At LAX, it's point-of-sale dependent. Obviously, *A partners will have the advantage at their local point of sale, and where that drives significant premium traffic to LAX, it makes sense for the JV partner to do the flying (see FRA/MUC/ZRH). In some cases (e.g., Japan) UA has POS strength in its own right and it's good business to operate UA metal alongside the partner. My hope is that as JV markets grow and require more lift UA will get the flying. For instance, a late UA LAX-FRA-LAX (LAX-FRA #3), enabling a LAX departure in the 5pm hour or an early LAX-MUC (#2) followed by a 4pm MUC-LAX could meet LH banks and provide more connectivity than the existing schedules, much like other UA hubs where UA/LH coordinate timing.

codc10 wrote:

IAH needs to increase its portfolio of destinations, upgauge out of such 50-seater dependency, and continue to grow/add banks.

Your prescriptions are in conflict:

Upgauging doesn't help the destination count. (If they can't fill 50 seats today, 76 won't be easier.)

Upgauging doesn't help the bank count - you get a double helping of extra seats to fill.

If they have space to grow in DEN, do it there: you acknowledge it's better for domestic connections. It's the far larger domestic O&D market - not just bigger than IAH, bigger than IAH+HOU combined.

Let the IAH hub do what it's geographically positioned to do, and add TPAC where non-stop fare premiums are meaningful vs. SFO connections, and add TATL where same is true vs. IAH-EWR-XXX.

codc10 wrote:

Agree that United needs to keep building its domestic operation at IAH. In terms of connectivity and schedule, it's weak compared to DFW and more circuitous than DEN for E-W connections on UA. IAH needs to increase its portfolio of destinations, upgauge out of such 50-seater dependency, and continue to grow/add banks. The natural offshoot of that is the ability to support more international flying.

Here were the Q2 2021 PDEW's of some top domestic routes not currently served nonstop from IAH/HOU:
GEG-IAH/HOU - 58 (UA was originally planning on serving GEG nonstop from IAH prior to the pandemic)
BUF-IAH/HOU - 50
FAT-IAH/HOU - 40
ALB-IAH/HOU - 36
PWM-IAH/HOU - 30
MYR-IAH/HOU - 28
ROC-IAH/HOU - 28
SYR-IAH/HOU - 26
GSO-IAH/HOU - 21
MSN-IAH/HOU - 21

AVL and LEX aren't currently served nonstop from IAH but currently have less-than-daily nonstop service out of HOU on G4.

IAH-ALB/AVL/BUF/FAT/GSO/LEX/MSN/MYR/PWM/ROC/GEG/SYR are all within the range of E-175 regional jets, and UA has operated regional jets on a few routes longer than IAH-GEG such as SFO-MSN/STL.

intotheair wrote:

jplatts wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

LAX is the only hub UA has that isn't connected to FRA/MUC and is the largest UA hub without a connection to TLV on United.

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

I could be completely wrong, but didn't UA try LAX-FRA at one point, maybe about 20 years ago? I want to say they even did LAX-CDG, though I may just be confusing that with SFO-CDG.

The LAX hub is not quite what it was in its prime in the 2000s, but it's still a decent operation. I'm willing to bet Scott Kirby's United won't want to let LAX slip away, as much of a bloodbath as it is for everyone.

I kind of remember around 1990 when I was living in Paris that UA launched LAX service and made a big deal of it saying that Paris was then served from all their international gateways: LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD. For those without long memories UA also flights continuing from CDG on to a couple of cities in Switzerland and ATH. 727s based in Europe specifically for this.

And I agree that Kirby is not going to give an inch in LAX.

MIflyer12 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

IAH needs to increase its portfolio of destinations, upgauge out of such 50-seater dependency, and continue to grow/add banks.

Your prescriptions are in conflict:

Upgauging doesn't help the destination count. (If they can't fill 50 seats today, 76 won't be easier.)

Upgauging doesn't help the bank count - you get a double helping of extra seats to fill.

If they have space to grow in DEN, do it there: you acknowledge it's better for domestic connections. It's the far larger domestic O&D market - not just bigger than IAH, bigger than IAH+HOU combined.

Let the IAH hub do what it's geographically positioned to do, and add TPAC where non-stop fare premiums are meaningful vs. SFO connections, and add TATL where same is true vs. IAH-EWR-XXX.

What you describe isn't in conflict with what I discuss (incidentally, based on United's overall network strategy).

I respond to a concern over IAH being "left out" of recent route announcements, and one reason is that UA's longhaul/EU portfolio ex-IAH is essentially what the hub can support at the moment.

To grow the hub, UA needs to increase connectivity. This can be accomplished by adding flights to existing banks (limited by facility constraints), adding seats to existing flights/upgauging (a broader, systemwide initiative at UA) and adding new banks (a more competitive schedule to put it on better footing with AA). With greater volume passing through the hub, perhaps critical mass to support new longhaul flying can be achieved. That is, after all, what has largely happened for UA more recently at DEN. It's also a significant reason why AA has around 2x the longhaul international slate at DFW versus UA at IAH, despite the DFW O&D market not being materially larger than IAH.

While not geographically ideal for all E-W connections, IAH is competitively positioned for many of the same traffic flows as DFW (and, to a lesser extent, ATL/CLT). Pricing held constant, DFW almost always wins in terms of frequency, schedule (shorter layover) and equipment, including itineraries which avoid single-cabin aircraft. To capture more business, it's sort of a "spend money to make money" scenario, in which United needs to increase the scope and scale of the IAH hub. If you listen to UA's various investor calls, especially in the pandemic era, they focus specifically on growth at the mid-continent hubs of IAH/DEN/ORD, and this is exactly what they mean.

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

As oil prices rise, historically UA has benefit, to a certain degree, from corresponding increases in business travel (on the E&P side of the oil industry) from IAH.

In the post-COVID era, United should be able to grow its operation without sacrificing opportunities at any of its hubs. Population growth in Texas over the past few years, along with the arrival of new businesses, should only further strengthen the O&D component of the IAH hub.

I think a lot of people look at the late 90s/early 2000s as the high water mark of United at LAX, as if it's some sort of aspirational standard to return to... forgetting, of course, that it was fueled primarily by the dot-com boom and the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California. Pre-9/11, it was structured as a de facto connecting hub. In the decades since, SFO has assumed that role, and grown larger than ever before (pre-pandemic), to extremely good result. I can't envision United fragmenting the SFO franchise by trying to replicate it, at likely lower margins, 300 miles down the coast. In many ways, LAX/SFO of the early 2000s at United were somewhat redundant.

I think the ultimate state of the United LAX hub is, in concept, something we've yet to see, with minimal design as a connecting complex. At the very least, Scott Kirby is firmly committed to LAX, so barring another cataclysmic industry event, I expect UA to continue an upward trajectory there.

flyer56 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

jplatts wrote:

UA's partner LH already operates LAX-FRA/MUC nonstop service, and LAX also already has 1-stop connecting options through other UA hubs onto UA-operated flights to FRA/MUC.

I could be completely wrong, but didn't UA try LAX-FRA at one point, maybe about 20 years ago? I want to say they even did LAX-CDG, though I may just be confusing that with SFO-CDG.

The LAX hub is not quite what it was in its prime in the 2000s, but it's still a decent operation. I'm willing to bet Scott Kirby's United won't want to let LAX slip away, as much of a bloodbath as it is for everyone.

I kind of remember around 1990 when I was living in Paris that UA launched LAX service and made a big deal of it saying that Paris was then served from all their international gateways: LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD. For those without long memories UA also flights continuing from CDG on to a couple of cities in Switzerland and ATH. 727s based in Europe specifically for this.

And I agree that Kirby is not going to give an inch in LAX.

Cool! I remember in 1993 flying IAD-MXP on a 767 and transferring to a 727 to FCO. I thought it was amazing to see UA narrow body metal sitting in Europe.

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

Im not exactly sure what youre point is supposed to be.

IAH is the Latin America hub and a significant domestic hub. UA is good at utilizing its resources. DEN/ORD/IAH serve as the domestic connectors as opposed to having a mega hub like DFW or ATL. Stuff like IAH-LHR/AMS survive with little help from connections. FRA/MUC/NRT connect JV hubs. DEN, for example, has much lower international O&D demand that IAH has. Thats why IAH has a significant number of international carriers and DEN doesn't. That also is a factor with how UA decides to allocate its resources.

I dont think Ill ever understand your personal vendetta against IAH.

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

As oil prices rise, historically UA has benefit, to a certain degree, from corresponding increases in business travel (on the E&P side of the oil industry) from IAH.

In the post-COVID era, United should be able to grow its operation without sacrificing opportunities at any of its hubs. Population growth in Texas over the past few years, along with the arrival of new businesses, should only further strengthen the O&D component of the IAH hub.

I think a lot of people look at the late 90s/early 2000s as the high water mark of United at LAX, as if it's some sort of aspirational standard to return to... forgetting, of course, that it was fueled primarily by the dot-com boom and the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California. Pre-9/11, it was structured as a de facto connecting hub. In the decades since, SFO has assumed that role, and grown larger than ever before (pre-pandemic), to extremely good result. I can't envision United fragmenting the SFO franchise by trying to replicate it, at likely lower margins, 300 miles down the coast. In many ways, LAX/SFO of the early 2000s at United were somewhat redundant.

I think the ultimate state of the United LAX hub is, in concept, something we've yet to see, with minimal design as a connecting complex. At the very least, Scott Kirby is firmly committed to LAX, so barring another cataclysmic industry event, I expect UA to continue an upward trajectory there.

Considering that LAX is planning on getting T9 and Scott Kirby basically calling for T9 to become UA territory, I think that UA's LAX hub concept is similar to that of SFO, but different. LAX is the busiest O&D airport in the world and the US so it makes sense that any routes UA has at LAX be P2P or JV routes rather than business contract routes. However, looking at the plans UA has at LAX once T9 is online, it's clear that UA wants T9 to be its hub for long haul international routes(similar to Boarding Area G at SFO) and T7/8 to be its mini version of T3 at SFO. TLDR: LAX to be a mini SFO once T9 is completed.

jplatts wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Agree that United needs to keep building its domestic operation at IAH. In terms of connectivity and schedule, it's weak compared to DFW and more circuitous than DEN for E-W connections on UA. IAH needs to increase its portfolio of destinations, upgauge out of such 50-seater dependency, and continue to grow/add banks. The natural offshoot of that is the ability to support more international flying.

Here were the Q2 2021 PDEW's of some top domestic routes not currently served nonstop from IAH/HOU:
GEG-IAH/HOU - 58 (UA was originally planning on serving GEG nonstop from IAH prior to the pandemic)
BUF-IAH/HOU - 50
FAT-IAH/HOU - 40
ALB-IAH/HOU - 36
PWM-IAH/HOU - 30
MYR-IAH/HOU - 28
ROC-IAH/HOU - 28
SYR-IAH/HOU - 26
GSO-IAH/HOU - 21
MSN-IAH/HOU - 21

AVL and LEX aren't currently served nonstop from IAH but currently have less-than-daily nonstop service out of HOU on G4.

IAH-ALB/AVL/BUF/FAT/GSO/LEX/MSN/MYR/PWM/ROC/GEG/SYR are all within the range of E-175 regional jets, and UA has operated regional jets on a few routes longer than IAH-GEG such as SFO-MSN/STL.

FAT-ORD is longer than FAT-IAH by quite a bit, so seems easily doable on an E175.

What long haul routes do people think LAX will get once T9 is complete?

My picks would be ICN, PPT, CDG, FRA, and TLV. PEK might work if US-China relations improve. TPE and HKG have little to no chance when you consider TPE already has 3 airlines and HKG has been tried and failed 3 times in the past 30 years.

theasianguy wrote:

What long haul routes do people think LAX will get once T9 is complete?

My picks would be ICN, PPT, CDG, FRA, and TLV. PEK might work if US-China relations improve. TPE and HKG have little to no chance when you consider TPE already has 3 airlines and HKG has been tried and failed 3 times in the past 30 years.

Maybe BNE/SIN/AKL/KIX/LHR(2nd)/MUC and others. I think HKG could work cause UA does have interline agreements with CX but it would be a long shot due to the shifting political atmosphere of HK and the fact that HKG is an Oneworld Stronghold.

Does anybody have the latest max delivery numbers?

Here at EWR, we’ve seen a quite noticeable increase in the amount of Max-8’s and 9’s flying into the station.

Are there any restrictions on using the max to the Caribbean and any word on reactivating some of our heavy international flights such as LIM, EZE etc ?

Right now 12 MAX8 and 1 in induction. 3-4 more MAX8 deliveries this year. 30 MAX9 in service.

Cmac787 wrote:

Right now 12 MAX8 and 1 in induction. 3-4 more MAX8 deliveries this year. 30 MAX9 in service.

Thanks

portola2727 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

As oil prices rise, historically UA has benefit, to a certain degree, from corresponding increases in business travel (on the E&P side of the oil industry) from IAH.

In the post-COVID era, United should be able to grow its operation without sacrificing opportunities at any of its hubs. Population growth in Texas over the past few years, along with the arrival of new businesses, should only further strengthen the O&D component of the IAH hub.

I think a lot of people look at the late 90s/early 2000s as the high water mark of United at LAX, as if it's some sort of aspirational standard to return to... forgetting, of course, that it was fueled primarily by the dot-com boom and the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California. Pre-9/11, it was structured as a de facto connecting hub. In the decades since, SFO has assumed that role, and grown larger than ever before (pre-pandemic), to extremely good result. I can't envision United fragmenting the SFO franchise by trying to replicate it, at likely lower margins, 300 miles down the coast. In many ways, LAX/SFO of the early 2000s at United were somewhat redundant.

I think the ultimate state of the United LAX hub is, in concept, something we've yet to see, with minimal design as a connecting complex. At the very least, Scott Kirby is firmly committed to LAX, so barring another cataclysmic industry event, I expect UA to continue an upward trajectory there.

Considering that LAX is planning on getting T9 and Scott Kirby basically calling for T9 to become UA territory, I think that UA's LAX hub concept is similar to that of SFO, but different. LAX is the busiest O&D airport in the world and the US so it makes sense that any routes UA has at LAX be P2P or JV routes rather than business contract routes. However, looking at the plans UA has at LAX once T9 is online, it's clear that UA wants T9 to be its hub for long haul international routes(similar to Boarding Area G at SFO) and T7/8 to be its mini version of T3 at SFO. TLDR: LAX to be a mini SFO once T9 is completed.

We'll see. Asia's COVID recovery is likely to lag for some time, given onerous border restrictions (not to mention the more seismic geopolitical shifts underway), and LAX really only makes sense as a transfer hub to Asia/Pacific. I seriously doubt United would fragment its position at SFO to grow LAX. With that said, the Asia/Pacific market is going to look pretty different coming out of this crisis, with many of the carriers previous dumping capacity into longhaul markets having significant retrenched, laid off staff and parked airplanes.

In the alternative, I still think United can be more tactical in markets it serves from LAX, as well as with gauge and schedule, to make it a more viable option for the massive local market without structuring the operation to cater to connecting traffic.

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

As oil prices rise, historically UA has benefit, to a certain degree, from corresponding increases in business travel (on the E&P side of the oil industry) from IAH.

In the post-COVID era, United should be able to grow its operation without sacrificing opportunities at any of its hubs. Population growth in Texas over the past few years, along with the arrival of new businesses, should only further strengthen the O&D component of the IAH hub.

I think a lot of people look at the late 90s/early 2000s as the high water mark of United at LAX, as if it's some sort of aspirational standard to return to... forgetting, of course, that it was fueled primarily by the dot-com boom and the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California. Pre-9/11, it was structured as a de facto connecting hub. In the decades since, SFO has assumed that role, and grown larger than ever before (pre-pandemic), to extremely good result. I can't envision United fragmenting the SFO franchise by trying to replicate it, at likely lower margins, 300 miles down the coast. In many ways, LAX/SFO of the early 2000s at United were somewhat redundant.

I think the ultimate state of the United LAX hub is, in concept, something we've yet to see, with minimal design as a connecting complex. At the very least, Scott Kirby is firmly committed to LAX, so barring another cataclysmic industry event, I expect UA to continue an upward trajectory there.

I think what many people miss is the history of LAX to UA, that goes back to the 40's, with early transcontinental routes, and being the airline of Hollywood, which I've always thought was in no small part why they called their clubs Red Carpet Clubs. I think UA lost some of that prestige when they gave up their dominance at the airport.

N47414 737-900ER is scheduled for AMA paint Evo blue livery F2736/19Oct
N17122 757-200 is scheduled to exit ILN MX and ferry to DEN F2691/20 Oct

cosyr wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

DEN is a much better hub than IAH for domestic. I am not surprised to see UA not add much out of IAH. I think UA will eventually expand in LAX again!! I loved their operation there pre-Continental. Hope to see them reclaim some of their LAX market share in the future. There are other hubs UA can use for International to Europe and Asia over IAH.

As oil prices rise, historically UA has benefit, to a certain degree, from corresponding increases in business travel (on the E&P side of the oil industry) from IAH.

In the post-COVID era, United should be able to grow its operation without sacrificing opportunities at any of its hubs. Population growth in Texas over the past few years, along with the arrival of new businesses, should only further strengthen the O&D component of the IAH hub.

I think a lot of people look at the late 90s/early 2000s as the high water mark of United at LAX, as if it's some sort of aspirational standard to return to... forgetting, of course, that it was fueled primarily by the dot-com boom and the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California. Pre-9/11, it was structured as a de facto connecting hub. In the decades since, SFO has assumed that role, and grown larger than ever before (pre-pandemic), to extremely good result. I can't envision United fragmenting the SFO franchise by trying to replicate it, at likely lower margins, 300 miles down the coast. In many ways, LAX/SFO of the early 2000s at United were somewhat redundant.

I think the ultimate state of the United LAX hub is, in concept, something we've yet to see, with minimal design as a connecting complex. At the very least, Scott Kirby is firmly committed to LAX, so barring another cataclysmic industry event, I expect UA to continue an upward trajectory there.

I think what many people miss is the history of LAX to UA, that goes back to the 40's, with early transcontinental routes, and being the airline of Hollywood, which I've always thought was in no small part why they called their clubs Red Carpet Clubs. I think UA lost some of that prestige when they gave up their dominance at the airport.

Still, LAX was never "dominated" by one carrier; it's always been a pretty oligopolistic airport with significant operations, at various times, from AA, UA, DL, WN, PS, WA, TW, CO's HQ, etc. UA's largest operation at LAX by market share (IIRC) came at the end of the last century, when LAX became a Shuttle hub and the SkyWest EM2 operation was at its apex. I believe, at that time, there were at least 7 longhaul flights (AKL, SYD/MEL, NRTx2, KIX, HKG, LHR).

I don't think UA ever gets back to the same level of high-frequency domestic service, but the international network (perhaps not the same destinations) is achievable. During the pandemic, UA has resumed a number of the Latin routes it previously flew, plus some new ones.

portola2727 wrote:

theasianguy wrote:

What long haul routes do people think LAX will get once T9 is complete?

My picks would be ICN, PPT, CDG, FRA, and TLV. PEK might work if US-China relations improve. TPE and HKG have little to no chance when you consider TPE already has 3 airlines and HKG has been tried and failed 3 times in the past 30 years.

Maybe BNE/SIN/AKL/KIX/LHR(2nd)/MUC and others. I think HKG could work cause UA does have interline agreements with CX but it would be a long shot due to the shifting political atmosphere of HK and the fact that HKG is an Oneworld Stronghold.

Asia is relatively closed right now and theres no way UA would add all of that from LAX. I think UA will add international flights here and there from LAX but it wont be that widespread.

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California.

I have to disagree with you on the Shuttle, it was very successful used as what it was initially designed to do take on SW point to point. unfortunately the VP of Network Planning at the time did not like it and picked it apart and bastardized it until it was ineffectual. He now resides in India.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

theasianguy wrote:

What long haul routes do people think LAX will get once T9 is complete?

My picks would be ICN, PPT, CDG, FRA, and TLV. PEK might work if US-China relations improve. TPE and HKG have little to no chance when you consider TPE already has 3 airlines and HKG has been tried and failed 3 times in the past 30 years.

Maybe BNE/SIN/AKL/KIX/LHR(2nd)/MUC and others. I think HKG could work cause UA does have interline agreements with CX but it would be a long shot due to the shifting political atmosphere of HK and the fact that HKG is an Oneworld Stronghold.

Asia is relatively closed right now and theres no way UA would add all of that from LAX. I think UA will add international flights here and there from LAX but it wont be that widespread.

I mean T9 isn't coming online until much later so who knows what the aviation market is like then. One thing is for sure, this isn't the Smisek era United where they'd retrench at the slightest bit of competition.

NoNonsense wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

the failed Shuttle by United concept designed to take on Southwest in California.

I have to disagree with you on the Shuttle, it was very successful used as what it was initially designed to do take on SW point to point. unfortunately the VP of Network Planning at the time did not like it and picked it apart and bastardized it until it was ineffectual. He now resides in India.

Sure, it was a success... until it wasn't. The early days of the Shuttle ex-OAK, in a more limited purpose, might have worked, but we aren't here to relitigate the past.

My point, returning to LAX, is that I don't think it's reasonable to expect UA @ LAX to go back to what it was in the late 90s because the market conditions that led to it no longer exist.

portola2727 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

Maybe BNE/SIN/AKL/KIX/LHR(2nd)/MUC and others. I think HKG could work cause UA does have interline agreements with CX but it would be a long shot due to the shifting political atmosphere of HK and the fact that HKG is an Oneworld Stronghold.

Asia is relatively closed right now and theres no way UA would add all of that from LAX. I think UA will add international flights here and there from LAX but it wont be that widespread.

I mean T9 isn't coming online until much later so who knows what the aviation market is like then. One thing is for sure, this isn't the Smisek era United where they'd retrench at the slightest bit of competition.

Yes, and thats why I do foresee expansion at LAX but Kirby and Co. also dont go willy nilly on expansion without carefully considering profitability. Competition is something that eats into profitability. So the market sizes have to be huge if there is a lot of competition (like LAX-LHR/TYO).

Interesting that last quarter United saw $473 million profit, including government support, on $7.8 billion revenue vs Delta’s $216 million on $8.3 billion. We’ve often lamented on this thread how we can’t find itineraries we like at prices we like but it seems like the network / capacity / pricing planners are on top of their game.

https://news.delta.com/delta-air-lines- ... 021-profit

https://hub.united.com/2021-10-19-unite ... 24847.html

United Airlines Turns A Profit With 777s Expected To Be Back Next Year

Looking forward to Pratt 777 return to service:

United’s 52 Boeing 777-200s powered by Pratt & Whitney engines remain grounded. However, the airline is keenly eyeing the return of these aircraft to active service and is expecting the jets to return to the skies in 2022, likely before the summer season.

If the 777s get back in the air, United will be increasing its international capacity by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019 levels while keeping domestic capacity flat. Together, this would get United to a 5% growth in capacity compared to 2019 levels.

Recapping the network:

Total capacity for the quarter was down 28% compared to the same quarter in 2019. Looking at this by geography, United’s domestic capacity was down 19.5% from the third quarter of 2019. Atlantic revenue was down 34.9% and Pacific revenue was down 75.2% from the same quarter. However, something that was quite interesting was to see United flying 9.9% more capacity in Latin America than it has previously. Altogether, international capacity was down 39.7% compared to the same quarter of 2019.

The consolidated passenger load factor for the quarter was 76.1%. Domestic performed well at 82.4% – down from the domestic load factor of 86.6% in 2019. International load factor stood at 65.2%, down from the 85.4% United recorded in the same quarter in 2019.

adamblang wrote:

United Airlines Turns A Profit With 777s Expected To Be Back Next Year

Looking forward to Pratt 777 return to service:

United’s 52 Boeing 777-200s powered by Pratt & Whitney engines remain grounded. However, the airline is keenly eyeing the return of these aircraft to active service and is expecting the jets to return to the skies in 2022, likely before the summer season.

If the 777s get back in the air, United will be increasing its international capacity by 10% in 2022 compared to 2019 levels while keeping domestic capacity flat. Together, this would get United to a 5% growth in capacity compared to 2019 levels.

Recapping the network:

Total capacity for the quarter was down 28% compared to the same quarter in 2019. Looking at this by geography, United’s domestic capacity was down 19.5% from the third quarter of 2019. Atlantic revenue was down 34.9% and Pacific revenue was down 75.2% from the same quarter. However, something that was quite interesting was to see United flying 9.9% more capacity in Latin America than it has previously. Altogether, international capacity was down 39.7% compared to the same quarter of 2019.

The consolidated passenger load factor for the quarter was 76.1%. Domestic performed well at 82.4% – down from the domestic load factor of 86.6% in 2019. International load factor stood at 65.2%, down from the 85.4% United recorded in the same quarter in 2019.

Good to see the PW 777’s are on the road to returning to service. It will definitely provide more transcon capacity especially BOS-LAX/SFO as before

N497UA A320 is scheduled to exit AMA paint with Evo blue livery and ferry to DEN F2729/20 Oct

Cmac787 wrote:

N497UA A320 is scheduled to exit AMA paint with Evo blue livery and ferry to DEN F2729/20 Oct

So I take it the 737-900ER that went in for paint yesterday replaced the A320? Or was there another 739 being painted?

I think I mixed those up haha.

All 14 76As (30J/184Y Polaris 763) are getting Premium Plus cabins, per the earnings call. A321XLRs too. PE has significantly outperformed expectations this year.

PW 777s will start to RTS in the first half of 2022, with the entire fleet expected to be back in service by June 2022.

787 deliveries originally planned for 2021 have now officially lapsed (save for one frame) as a result of Boeing QC issues. Expect that to be a late December delivery.

Nice sneak peak into the new Polaris lounge at Dulles. It looks like a nice place to relax in before a long flight.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... on-dulles/