dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

But if your conclusion is that United hasn’t “tried hard enough” to secure JFK slots simply on the basis that to date they have not, in fact, obtained use of permanent slots after the exemption period, that’s a pretty facile and circular argument. To paraphrase Robin Williams in Awakenings, “if you were right, I would agree with you.”

When you hold United’s deck of bargaining cards and NZ + Norse Atlantic get JFK slots while you’re looking… yeah, they just don’t care enough to pay for them. Plenty of airlines at JFK would trade United for JfK slots if United was actually willing to trade valuable assets. Which again, I don’t think they should, but it just shows JFK actually isn’t that valuable to them to bargain with their key assets that aa, dl, and b6 would want.

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

Was having a look through the Central American schedule over the next few months and some notes below:

1) All flights to SAP have been pulled except for IAH which remains daily.
2) EWR and IAD to SAL are gone. LAX-SAL is 4x weekly and IAH-SAL is 2x daily.
3) EWR and IAD to GUA are gone. LAX-GUA is 3x weekly and IAH-GUA is 2x daily.
4) EWR-PTY is daily until November 5 where it switches to 9x weekly. IAH-PTY stays 2x daily.

Here is some info on South America though it's pretty steady throughout.

From EWR:
BOG remains daily but goes from 73G to 737-8 Max October 30
LIM starts up December 9 with a 757-200 from 09DEC22
GRU remains a daily 777

From IAH:
BOG remains 2x daily but goes from 2x 73G to one 73G and one 737-8 Max October 30
LIM remains a daily 767-300
UIO remains a daily 73G
SCL remains a daily 767-300
EZE remains a daily 777
GRU is a daily 787-900 until 28OCT22 where it becomes a daily 777
GIG remains a daily 767-300

From ORD:
GRU remains a daily 787-900

From IAD:
GRU starts up 28OCT22 as a 767-400.

lx2iah wrote:

They.Should.Have.Never.Left.JFK.In.The.First.Place.

You can’t have it both ways UA. UA abandoned JFK several years ago because profits (?) at that station weren’t so good - then several years later they come back and now want more slots? It just doesn’t work that way.

And to top it all off - if they can’t get what they want by October - they’re going to leave JFK again ?!?!

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

Agreed, the stench of Smisek's decision still affects UAL.

lx2iah wrote:

And to top it all off - if they can’t get what they want by October - they’re going to leave JFK again ?!?!

The temporary slots are just that - temporary. They expire at the end of October.

RyanairGuru wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

But if your conclusion is that United hasn’t “tried hard enough” to secure JFK slots simply on the basis that to date they have not, in fact, obtained use of permanent slots after the exemption period, that’s a pretty facile and circular argument. To paraphrase Robin Williams in Awakenings, “if you were right, I would agree with you.”

When you hold United’s deck of bargaining cards and NZ + Norse Atlantic get JFK slots while you’re looking… yeah, they just don’t care enough to pay for them. Plenty of airlines at JFK would trade United for JfK slots if United was actually willing to trade valuable assets. Which again, I don’t think they should, but it just shows JFK actually isn’t that valuable to them to bargain with their key assets that aa, dl, and b6 would want.

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

dfwfanboy wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

When you hold United’s deck of bargaining cards and NZ + Norse Atlantic get JFK slots while you’re looking… yeah, they just don’t care enough to pay for them. Plenty of airlines at JFK would trade United for JfK slots if United was actually willing to trade valuable assets. Which again, I don’t think they should, but it just shows JFK actually isn’t that valuable to them to bargain with their key assets that aa, dl, and b6 would want.

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

codc10 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

Yes we CAN say Jeff! Not totally though. By the time UAL left jfk we only had a few flights out of there. 747's to NRT and 767's to LAX and SFO. I know why the CO management team wanted out of JFK because as long as United was still in JFK, then EWR would NEVER become the "prime" UA NYC airport destination. And? For a while it worked until Jeff and Co got the BOOT. The senior managers there now mostly did not come from CO. they're Ex-American, Ex-Delta, and Ex-Northwest.
And they're managing like they've got an "attitude" which they probably do. even before I retired they had made statements that leaving JFK in the first place was a BAD idea. But? They weren't HERE when it was decided. So? It IS what it IS.. the best they can do now? Is to get back into JFK if they can and fly there with an attitude. gather all the Star Alliance Partner airlines together and do what they Do. AS JFK is, Has Been, and will always be the premier east coast Gateway in the USA.

So we know that at the end, UA was only flying to LAX/SFO from JFK, and they traded those last slots to DL in exchange for slots at EWR (where they got screwed by slots being eliminated at EWR almost immediately after.) but back in 1999, they were flying to a dozen destinations from JFK (and I'm guessing that's not even the peak).http://www.departedflights.com/JFK99intro.html

Guessing it has something to do with bankruptcy, but where did the rest of those slots go between 2000 and 2015?

strfyr51 wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

By the time UAL left jfk we only had a few flights out of there. 747's to NRT and 767's to LAX and SFO.

By the time UA left JFK, there were roughly a dozen 757s daily to LAX/SFO and nothing else. The 747’s last scheduled services at JFK were to NRT and HKG in 2001.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/275587/united-airlines-boeing-747-network-1970-2017/

strfyr51 wrote:

AS JFK is, Has Been, and will always be the premier east coast Gateway in the USA.

Only if an airlines network planning is run by Fergie, where JFK is glamorous. EWR is just as viable as JFK for New York, and if a foreign airline was chasing glamor, IAD, BOS, and even MIA.

cosyr wrote:

So we know that at the end, UA was only flying to LAX/SFO from JFK, and they traded those last slots to DL in exchange for slots at EWR (where they got screwed by slots being eliminated at EWR almost immediately after.) but back in 1999, they were flying to a dozen destinations from JFK (and I'm guessing that's not even the peak).http://www.departedflights.com/JFK99intro.html

Guessing it has something to do with bankruptcy, but where did the rest of those slots go between 2000 and 2015?

I don't know if anybody BUT the people running UAL Inc. even know. There Is somebody, But Whom? Is the $100k question. It wasn't anybody at my level I can assure you.

strfyr51 wrote:

AS JFK is, Has Been, and will always be the premier east coast Gateway in the USA.

I log on here hoping I won't time and time again read statements like this but how naive of me. Par for the course.

SFOtoORD wrote:

codc10 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

What’s your point? That they should run 6 more flights a day at 9 pm in slots that aren’t available? Unless they are buying Norwegian out of bankruptcy? Especially since no one can say where NZ got their slots.

I think United has a point in their memo/letter. While it seems like an obvious double standard asking for a capacity increase at JFK while lobbying for level 3 slot controls at EWR, JFK is able to routinely handle more hourly traffic than their slot allocation is based on.

JFK's slot allocation is based on an airport throughput rate of 81 operations per hour. In reality, the published AARs/ADRs for multiple runway configurations add up to throughput rates of closer to 90 operations per hour on average. JFK is routinely able to maintain an AAR in the 40-54 range, even in IFR. The ADR fluctuates depending on arrival runway usage, but throughout the day, the currently published rates are capable of handling the peaks and valleys of the daily operation, even with slightly increased throughput (7-10 more operations per hour). Obviously, SWAP days are a different story. All bets are off for the NYMETS on those days. GDPs, etc. take over for the normal slot-controlled schedule.

EWR is clearly scheduled to it's maximum capacity day-to-day, as evidenced by routine holding and volume GDPs, even on VFR days. LGA isn't far behind, but has slightly more slack in the schedule. Look at EWR's demand chart on any given weekday, and you'll see nearly 40 arrivals per hour through the entire day with very little recovery room. JFK is also busy, but there is more opportunity throughout the day for recovery, and demand is rarely at/above capacity for 3+ hours at a time, except on SWAP days. JFK is routinely able to land 2 runways during both VFR and IFR periods, keeping it's AAR above 40 most of the time. The airport is also capable of changing configuration to prioritize departures as necessary when departure demand spikes arise. JFK is slotted noticeabley below its published throughout capability, and I see no reason why a few operations per hour can't be added.

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

What’s your point? That they should run 6 more flights a day at 9 pm in slots that aren’t available? Unless they are buying Norwegian out of bankruptcy? Especially since no one can say where NZ got their slots.

That UA could build their portfolio over time like every other carrier does instead of whining to the faa.
Two great slot times became available over the last two years and United failed to get them. You really think Norse cares about taking off at 6pm vs midnight? Of course not, UA just doesn’t want to pay for premium slots. They want them for free or they’re leaving jfk. You don’t have to buy Norwegian out of bankruptcy to get a decent slot time from a ULCC that could likely care less. But you still have to pay them for it.
Which, again, good for UA; they have probably the best hub in America across the river but all this whining about premium jfk slots after they sold their own is just strange.

dctraynr wrote:

I think United has a point in their memo/letter. While it seems like an obvious double standard asking for a capacity increase at JFK while lobbying for level 3 slot controls at EWR, JFK is able to routinely handle more hourly traffic than their slot allocation is based on.

JFK's slot allocation is based on an airport throughput rate of 81 operations per hour. In reality, the published AARs/ADRs for multiple runway configurations add up to throughput rates of closer to 90 operations per hour on average. JFK is routinely able to maintain an AAR in the 40-54 range, even in IFR. The ADR fluctuates depending on arrival runway usage, but throughout the day, the currently published rates are capable of handling the peaks and valleys of the daily operation, even with slightly increased throughput (7-10 more operations per hour). Obviously, SWAP days are a different story. All bets are off for the NYMETS on those days. GDPs, etc. take over for the normal slot-controlled schedule.

EWR is clearly scheduled to it's maximum capacity day-to-day, as evidenced by routine holding and volume GDPs, even on VFR days. LGA isn't far behind, but has slightly more slack in the schedule. Look at EWR's demand chart on any given weekday, and you'll see nearly 40 arrivals per hour through the entire day with very little recovery room. JFK is also busy, but there is more opportunity throughout the day for recovery, and demand is rarely at/above capacity for 3+ hours at a time, except on SWAP days. JFK is routinely able to land 2 runways during both VFR and IFR periods, keeping it's AAR above 40 most of the time. The airport is also capable of changing configuration to prioritize departures as necessary when departure demand spikes arise. JFK is slotted noticeabley below its published throughout capability, and I see no reason why a few operations per hour can't be added.

I agree with your assessment, and while it seems like UA is asking for a double standard, the opposite double standard is being enforced right now. UA is being denied permanent space at an airport with (slightly) more capacity, while competitors are being let into the constrained EWR airport with less runway capabilities, and it does have slots to ensure some order to it's overstretched capacity. UA is not being allowed to offer meaningful competition at JFK, and also does not possess the same protections at EWR, that other airlines have at JFK.

Would UA like the reverse double standard to exist? Do they want free slots at JFK to compete, and for EWR to be closed off to new entrants? Sure! Of course, they are a business. But they won't get that, so I think they are asking the FAA to at least relax the double standard that works against them, and give a little bit back.

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

What’s your point? That they should run 6 more flights a day at 9 pm in slots that aren’t available? Unless they are buying Norwegian out of bankruptcy? Especially since no one can say where NZ got their slots.

That UA could build their portfolio over time like every other carrier does instead of whining to the faa.
Two great slot times became available over the last two years and United failed to get them. You really think Norse cares about taking off at 6pm vs midnight? Of course not, UA just doesn’t want to pay for premium slots. They want them for free or they’re leaving jfk. You don’t have to buy Norwegian out of bankruptcy to get a decent slot time from a ULCC that could likely care less. But you still have to pay them for it.
Which, again, good for UA; they have probably the best hub in America across the river but all this whining about premium jfk slots after they sold their own is just strange.

I appreciate that you’ll stick with this point even when it’s shown to be completely irrelevant and that you can’t find a single slot definitively available other than a bankruptcy.

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

splitterz wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

drerx7 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

IAH has become more O&D oriented than in past. While the frequency count at IAH hasn’t claimed much in recent months, the seat count is very much climbing higher.

Part of the reason for that is pilot shortage and part is that IAH is under going major, airport wide construction through 2023.

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

Absolutely….. There are markets near DEN that need those RJs. United also trying to grow Denver as well.

bigb wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

Absolutely….. There are markets near DEN that need those RJs. United also trying to grow Denver as well.

They are growing IAH as well. It’s seat count is way up even if it’s frequencies are not. Many markets are shifting to all mainline as opposed to RJs or mix. It’s just a different growth pattern.

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You can chose to believe anything that you want to - or not believe as you want.

One of my ex-relatives travels a lot for his IT business (I keep telling him they can afford their own airplane, but that's another story). He prefers connections in IAH during the winter time due to weather concerns at ORD and DEN (his trips are frequently booked late, so the forecasts are generally accurate). The point is, he has a choice. UAL's network is quite good, though not perfect. But hey, who's network is perfect?

Velocirapture wrote:

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You can chose to believe anything that you want to - or not believe as you want.

One of my ex-relatives travels a lot for his IT business (I keep telling him they can afford their own airplane, but that's another story). He prefers connections in IAH during the winter time due to weather concerns at ORD and DEN (his trips are frequently booked late, so the forecasts are generally accurate). The point is, he has a choice. UAL's network is quite good, though not perfect. But hey, who's network is perfect?

You’re right, I will chose to believe what I chose to. SK has been on record with his plans internally about the impact the pilot shortage is having on the network and what he is doing to alleviate that issue. I’ve laid out for ya.

It’s not the the better connectivity that is driving these changes as folks like to think…

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

Absolutely….. There are markets near DEN that need those RJs. United also trying to grow Denver as well.

They are growing IAH as well. It’s seat count is way up even if it’s frequencies are not. Many markets are shifting to all mainline as opposed to RJs or mix. It’s just a different growth pattern.

Ok, I am not seeing the point you are trying to make…. I don’t think there is any disagreement between you and I where it comes to IAH…. I was trying to support your earlier point.

bigb wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

Absolutely….. There are markets near DEN that need those RJs. United also trying to grow Denver as well.

They are growing IAH as well. It’s seat count is way up even if it’s frequencies are not. Many markets are shifting to all mainline as opposed to RJs or mix. It’s just a different growth pattern.

Ok, I am not seeing the point you are trying to make…. I don’t think there is any disagreement between you and I where it comes to IAH…. I was trying to support your earlier point.

It happens. Sometimes we talk past each other.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH is not a good city for connections to much of the U.S. and these cities are much better served through DEN and ORD. They are much better positioned and more business oriented cities than Houston.

Pi7472000 wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH is not a good city for connections to much of the U.S. and these cities are much better served through DEN and ORD. They are much better positioned and more business oriented cities than Houston.

There is no metric on earth where Denver os more business oriented than Houston. Not one. The economy of Denver is less than half the size of the economy of Houston. Houston has a lot more Fortune 500 companies and companies in general based here.

Denver is, in fact, far less business oriented than Houston.

To dig further, unlike UAs other hub cities, Denver has little to no ethnic diversity, a very minimal international flavor, and by far has the lowest international demand of all UAs hubs. That makes VFR tricky from DEN. What Denver does have is massive domestic O&D and good geography.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

N292UX wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

A random look around definitely is showing up as beefed up plane size feeding Houston. I notice that BHM has made the jump as well. I also agree with others that looking at one hub in isolation to determine network connectivity is not really fair. IAH is my primary hub and it is full of planes and people throughout the day. When the Terminal construction ends on the north side, I can’t imagine that, paired with the new Denver gates and anything they decide to do with Dulles will be significant.
With ORD to the north, they have a ‘diamond’ hub configuration that looks potent for network connection potency.

VFR and the potential for it is a quite fascinating topic. VFR depends solely on demographics and nothing more or less, but just because a city has a large ethnic community doesnt mean it generates a lot of traffic. Minneapolis/St. Paul has the largest Somali and Laotian communities in the US but MSP-VTE/MGQ dont even generate double digit PDEWs. On the other hand VFR traffic is huge in a market like LAX-ICN, SFO-China, NYC-India, IAD-SAL, IAH-SAP, etc. Because of that Im not trying to imply market size, but rather VFR potential.

Anyway, I thought Id look at the ethnic diversities for the UA hubs and it is a relatively good indicator of their VFR potential. The data is from data.census.gov and is from 2020. All immigrant communities over 20,000 in the specific metro areas are listed. Im only considering UA hubs.

New York City - 43 Countries (1st in US)
Dominican Republic: 636,253
China: 522,232
India: 357,012
Jamaica: 248,255
Ecuador: 239,909
Haiti: 160,525
Philippines: 145,434
Colombia: 178,839
Guyana: 169,406
Korea: 137,017
El Salvador: 133,718
Bangladesh: 106,009
Italy: 104,508
Peru: 104,182
Poland: 101,075
Trinidad and Tobago: 100,565
Guatemala: 85,578
Russia: 85,445
Ukraine: 84,442
Pakistan: 75,949
Honduras: 72,201
United Kingdom: 66,491
Cuba: 60,694
Brazil: 57,839
Egypt: 51,701
Nigeria: 45,673
Ghana: 44,130
Germany: 40,356
Portugal: 38,503
Israel: 34,690
Japan: 33,027
Uzbekistan: 30,764
Ireland: 30,641
Argentina: 28,407
Barbados: 27,504
Grenada: 27,317
Turkey: 27,412
France: 26,853
Albania: 26,201
Vietnam: 24,353
Venezuela: 22,830
Romania: 22,503
Spain: 21,749

Los Angeles - 20 Countries (2nd in US)
Mexico: 1,547,703
China: 358,193
Philippines: 297,191
El Salvador: 285,707
Vietnam: 251,499
Korea: 209,026
Guatemala: 185,803
Iran: 137,632
India: 95,957
Armenia: 69,157
Japan: 48,447
United Kingdom: 44,517
Honduras: 37,466
Peru: 32,308
Cambodia: 27,070
Thailand: 24,818
Russia: 24,368
Nicaragua: 23,726
Colombia: 22,902
Germany: 22,619

Washington DC - 18 Countries (4th in US)
El Salvador: 190,597
India: 106,105
China: 74,168
Korea: 62,110
Guatemala: 53,812
Ethiopia: 53,506
Vietnam: 48,403
Mexico: 47,797
Philippines: 46,346
Peru: 40,116
Honduras: 38,590
Pakistan: 30,467
Bolivia: 27,928
Nigeria: 27,897
Ghana: 24,795
Jamaica: 24,385
Iran: 22,105
Colombia: 20,503

Houston - 14 Countries (5th in US)
Mexico: 591,287
El Salvador: 124,946
Vietnam: 98,789
India: 88,109
Honduras: 73,648
China: 71,009
Nigeria: 46,133
Guatemala: 42,754
Philippines: 41,367
Venezuela: 37,489
Pakistan: 31,254
Colombia: 30,479
Cuba: 30,392
United Kingdom: 21,567

Chicago - 10 Countries (7th in US)
Mexico: 601,025
India: 146,171
Poland: 125,024
Philippines: 82,206
China: 74,986
Korea: 35,842
Pakistan: 29,125
Ukraine: 28,542
Guatemala: 22,818
Vietnam: 20,909

San Francisco - 9 Countries (9th in US-when San Jose is included, it jumps to 6th but SJC is a separate metro)
China: 301,826
Mexico: 218,056
Philippines: 162,540
India: 143,267
Vietnam: 58,397
El Salvador: 56,771
Korea: 32,282
Guatemala: 32,062
United Kingdom: 23,750

Denver - 1 Country
Mexico: 137,279

IAD is actually the one I wonder if UA could do more with. Its a very ethnically diverse area and it seems like there would be more they could do with it. Im guessing the large amount of competition plays a role in that.

Another fascinating thing is that Chicago, Houston, and DC have almost identically sized Chinese immigrant communities.

how come mexico doesn’t show up under NYC?

IrishAyes wrote:

how come mexico doesn’t show up under NYC?

I missed it. Its 265,044. So 44 countries for NYC.

EWR-JNB again being operated by a 787-10

sldispatcher wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

A random look around definitely is showing up as beefed up plane size feeding Houston. I notice that BHM has made the jump as well. I also agree with others that looking at one hub in isolation to determine network connectivity is not really fair. IAH is my primary hub and it is full of planes and people throughout the day. When the Terminal construction ends on the north side, I can’t imagine that, paired with the new Denver gates and anything they decide to do with Dulles will be significant.
With ORD to the north, they have a ‘diamond’ hub configuration that looks potent for network connection potency.

BHM was just for this weekend. Upgauged to a couple 737 flights. Major traffic from BHM to IAH/AUS for the Alabama vs. Texas game in Austin. Seat maps on the 737 flights in the opposite direction of travel though (IAH-BHM on Friday, BHM-IAH on Sunday) all looked pretty good though too.

Opus99 wrote:

EWR-JNB again being operated by a 787-10

Full in Buiness and PP, Y light load.
I see the return 187/12Sep is cancelled due to operational reasons while the inbound is still 50 minutes out of JNB.

gdavis003 wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

A random look around definitely is showing up as beefed up plane size feeding Houston. I notice that BHM has made the jump as well. I also agree with others that looking at one hub in isolation to determine network connectivity is not really fair. IAH is my primary hub and it is full of planes and people throughout the day. When the Terminal construction ends on the north side, I can’t imagine that, paired with the new Denver gates and anything they decide to do with Dulles will be significant.
With ORD to the north, they have a ‘diamond’ hub configuration that looks potent for network connection potency.

BHM was just for this weekend. Upgauged to a couple 737 flights. Major traffic from BHM to IAH/AUS for the Alabama vs. Texas game in Austin. Seat maps on the 737 flights in the opposite direction of travel though (IAH-BHM on Friday, BHM-IAH on Sunday) all looked pretty good though too.

IAH-BHM is 5x daily effective October so it may be one that demands more frequency.

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

No, there are “United” stations that have mainline service that are ground handled by United Ground Express, DHS or American Eagle. They just have to be trained and familiar with the United ground service manual.

jetskipper wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

No, there are “United” stations that have mainline service that are ground handled by United Ground Express, DHS or American Eagle. They just have to be trained and familiar with the United ground service manual.

Small Correction: American Eagle/Envoy no longer ground handles for United. They were replaced by UGE or other Ground Handlers.

DHS I assume you meant DGS, and they are Unify now. They ground handle a much smaller portion of United Stations.

To answer above...No.

SkyWest (Non Union) Ground Handles COS Airport, and they get Mainline.

UGE (Union, same Union as United Mainline) ground handles, MEM, BNA, SRQ just to name a few and they get a lot of Mainline Flights as well.

UGE is United's Largest Ground Handler, being owned by United Inc, and they do over 60 Stations. That Number will change as United closes more stations due to the Pilot Shortage.

Alex

Opus99 wrote:

EWR-JNB again being operated by a 787-10

Really? I would have thought SA is out of a 787-10’s range? So now that the 787-10 is plying the skies what is her maximum range today? It’s in my top 3 fav aircraft.

Thanks

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

35 flights per day (any combo of UA/UAX) is the threshold before any work has to be insourced to mainline employees on the ground.

Oops, UA cxld 187/12Sep JNB-EWR and renumbered it to 3033/12Sep. Looks like the entire front Business/PP is totally full with only 40 or so in E+/Y. Flight Status doesn't indicate people moved forward for weight and balance.
Yes, the 78X is not listed as capable for that distance, but payload must be low enough to make the trip. I'll bet that's a long takeoff roll at 5510 feet above sea level with 14K foot runway.