manny wrote:

Why does UA always treat DEN like the bastard child of its network. With the kind of traffic that DEN commands there should be a lot more international connections. Would love to see more transatlantic and atleast one nonstop Indian flight from DEN.

I would say IAH is getting overshadowed by DEN.

manny wrote:

Why does UA always treat DEN like the bastard child of its network. With the kind of traffic that DEN commands there should be a lot more international connections. Would love to see more transatlantic and atleast one nonstop Indian flight from DEN.

IAH is always going to be stronger than DEN to Latin America. With other international, the sheer size of the Houston MSA means it likely has much higher O&D to many European and Asian cities than DEN. Compared to MSP, which is a slightly larger MSA and also a strong hub, DEN does pretty well.

DEN right now is the star of UA's network. Calling it the bastard child is definitely not accurate.

IAH has been the red-headed stepchild of United's network for years. The only new routes have been intra-state regional routes which have since been canceled.

ChaseP wrote:

IAH has been the red-headed stepchild of United's network for years. The only new routes have been intra-state regional routes which have since been canceled.

IAH, the red-headed stepchild with more daily seats than IAD, LAX, ORD, and SFO, more daily departures than EWR, IAD, LAX, and SFO, and more daily destinations than EWR, IAD, LAX, and SFO.

Let’s take a step back. Lots of empty rhetoric being thrown around.

1) DEN is an excellent domestic hub. That’s why it’s the shining star of the UA network right now. What DEN is not a rich source of is international O&D. That’s why the long haul international flights DEN does have connect to UA JV hubs. This is why, IMO, AMS and CDG are nonstarters at DEN. Yes AF started seasonal flights to DEN but they’ve been flying to IAH for decades and UA ceded the market to them. IAH-CDG is much larger and premium heavy than DEN-CDG as well. DEN-ZRH on the other hand would be a good fit IMO. Either way, DEN is poised to grow quite large in the post pandemic world, but it’ll be overwhelmingly domestic.

2) As for IAH, it doesn’t get a lot of new routes like DEN and ORD, but it’s destinations are very stable relative to other hubs. IAH gets capacity reductions but it’s held onto just about every long haul destination UA has flown to in the last 10 years. IAH and DEN are inverse of each other. One has large domestic demand and low international demand and the other has large international demand and relatively low domestic demand. What do I see coming for IAH? GYE and domestic increases. Maybe LX. That’s it.

Both are amazing hubs but you can’t look at one and why the other doesn’t have the same things.

Was supposed to fly BHM-ICT next Friday via IAH, first leg on Mesa, second leg on SkyWest. It looks like all BHM-IAH flights for next Friday have been cancelled, as well as the daily BHM-ORD for that day. Now routed through DEN on OO for both legs. Seems strange that they would cancel all BHM-IAH flights this far in advance and for only next Friday, but I'm glad that they at least did this proactively. Are Mesa/Commutair/SkyWest cancelling ahead en masse for next Friday for other routes out of IAH?

gdavis003 wrote:

Was supposed to fly BHM-ICT next Friday via IAH, first leg on Mesa, second leg on SkyWest. It looks like all BHM-IAH flights for next Friday have been cancelled, as well as the daily BHM-ORD for that day. Now routed through DEN on OO for both legs. Seems strange that they would cancel all BHM-IAH flights this far in advance and for only next Friday, but I'm glad that they at least did this proactively. Are Mesa/Commutair/SkyWest cancelling ahead en masse for next Friday for other routes out of IAH?

Not all of the flights from BHM to IAH were cancelled. I see two flights still operating. What likely happened was that your flight was cancelled and all remaining flights were sold out.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

gdavis003 wrote:

Was supposed to fly BHM-ICT next Friday via IAH, first leg on Mesa, second leg on SkyWest. It looks like all BHM-IAH flights for next Friday have been cancelled, as well as the daily BHM-ORD for that day. Now routed through DEN on OO for both legs. Seems strange that they would cancel all BHM-IAH flights this far in advance and for only next Friday, but I'm glad that they at least did this proactively. Are Mesa/Commutair/SkyWest cancelling ahead en masse for next Friday for other routes out of IAH?

Not all of the flights from BHM to IAH were cancelled. I see two flights still operating. What likely happened was that your flight was cancelled and all remaining flights were sold out.

That would make sense then, thanks. When I searched for BHM-IAH next Friday, it wasn’t showing any flights, so I guess they were not listed since they’re sold out.

intotheair wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Let’s take a step back. Lots of empty rhetoric being thrown around.

1) DEN is an excellent domestic hub. That’s why it’s the shining star of the UA network right now. What DEN is not a rich source of is international O&D. That’s why the long haul international flights DEN does have connect to UA JV hubs. This is why, IMO, AMS and CDG are nonstarters at DEN. Yes AF started seasonal flights to DEN but they’ve been flying to IAH for decades and UA ceded the market to them. IAH-CDG is much larger and premium heavy than DEN-CDG as well. DEN-ZRH on the other hand would be a good fit IMO. Either way, DEN is poised to grow quite large in the post pandemic world, but it’ll be overwhelmingly domestic.

I think it said a lot when one of the first network changes UA/CO made after the merger closed was move IAH-CDG to SFO-CDG. I think DEN-CDG could *maybe* work, as AF (and DY briefly) has shown that there's a decent amount of demand at least in the summer, even if it skews toward leisure. But there's most likely not enough demand for two carriers on such a route. It's quite telling that UA is expanding DEN-LHR to double daily and adding DEN-MUC this year instead of adding a new European destination. I'm sure we'll eventually see one as UA adds more and more domestic connectivity that can help feed such a flight.

DEN and IAH are in the same boat in terms of one thing: for flights to European destinations from either hub have to have a significant O&D component unless they are flights to JV partner hubs. IAH-AMS, for example, exists because its a massive market with a huge premium component. In the case of IAH-CDG, its a big market with a good premium component but most of the premium market is from France to Houston not the other way around. That means AF is first in line for the most lucrative traffic. DEN-CDG is smaller and with an even lower premium fare component. I dont see the point when ORD, IAD, EWR, and SFO can connect it fine.

That brings us back to the idea that DEN and IAH have to have a large O&D market to a specific European city for UA to launch it. The exception are JV hubs. Otherwise, there is no reason for connections. Neither bring much to the table that ORD doesnt for domestic connections. IAH can funnel traffic to Latin America, but thats really secondary.

CALMSP wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

I agree with you on GYE. I am thinking DEN-ZRH could be the next UA long-haul route out of DEN simply because there is feed on both ends (Swiss in Zurich, United in Denver). Brisbane might be a bloodbath, especially if Qantas wants to run what would be on some days 3 flights to Brisbane this coming year. Again, I would expect ZRH to be added before CDG at IAH simply because of the connecting hubs on both ends.

Interesting you mention ZRH. A.net had also mentioned IAH-ZRH before. Houston is also huge in medical and biotech. Granted the European hub for that is GVA, ZRH would be the next best thing for air service for the industry with feed on both ends, it could possibly even edge out CDG for IAH service.

I believe IAH has better chances than DEN for CDG and ZRH, but DEN for sure has a better shot at DUB than Houston does. I live in Denver but I'm an IAH fanboy lol

DEN had ZRH before 2020, which was rumored that LX was going to overtake the route from their stepsister. With Edelweiss reducing their wide body fleet, they won't be back. UA would be solid with a 788 for sure.

Edelweiss returns to Denver next June with flights operated twice a week according to https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/12/ed ... mmer-2022/
Flights are bookable on LX.

The destinations that aren't resumed are SAN/MCO for the moment.

alphairspace wrote:

Edelweiss returns to Denver next June with flights operated twice a week according to https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/12/ed ... mmer-2022/
Flights are bookable on LX.

Makes sense. DEN traffic, whether O&D or connecting, is simply too leisure-heavy and low-volume to need the huge LX premium cabins. Edelweiss works great.

I think this is a main part of the reason that DEN doesn't see more longhaul flying from UA or other airlines.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

gdavis003 wrote:

Was supposed to fly BHM-ICT next Friday via IAH, first leg on Mesa, second leg on SkyWest. It looks like all BHM-IAH flights for next Friday have been cancelled, as well as the daily BHM-ORD for that day. Now routed through DEN on OO for both legs. Seems strange that they would cancel all BHM-IAH flights this far in advance and for only next Friday, but I'm glad that they at least did this proactively. Are Mesa/Commutair/SkyWest cancelling ahead en masse for next Friday for other routes out of IAH?

Not all of the flights from BHM to IAH were cancelled. I see two flights still operating. What likely happened was that your flight was cancelled and all remaining flights were sold out.

I on 1/1 got a notification that my 1/7 ORD-DEN-QKB's ORD-DEN segment canceled. At first I was rebooked on a wonky routing but over the next couple days seats opened up on the most direct routing so I changed onto that. You might see seats open up on BHM-IAH-ICT at which point you can swoop in and rebook if that's what you want to do.

Geographically speaking, DEN is somewhat "sandwiched" between the SFO and ORD hubs, both of which have far more international/long haul flights on UA metal. UA loves routing the majority of its TPAC passengers via SFO, while ORD is a TATL gateway to the mid-west and central portions of the country. So that kind of strips DEN from having a lot of long haul flights as they would be rather redundant there.

Going forward, I think long haul additions from DEN will depend heavily on local O&D to/from Colorado and neighboring states.

acavpics wrote:

Geographically speaking, DEN is somewhat "sandwiched" between the SFO and ORD hubs, both of which have far more international/long haul flights on UA metal. UA loves routing the majority of its TPAC passengers via SFO, while ORD is a TATL gateway to the mid-west and central portions of the country. So that kind of strips DEN from having a lot of long haul flights as they would be rather redundant there.

Going forward, I think long haul additions from DEN will depend heavily on local O&D to/from Colorado and neighboring states.

This. UA has no jack of all trades hub ala DFW or ATL. ORD and EWR are the closest, but a lot of that is simply because they are massive O&D markets. Because of that, hubs have to be relegated to serving specific purposes. EWR is the trans-Atlantic hub, IAH is the Latin Hub, and SFO is the Pacific hub. LAX and IAD are more O&D than hub focused. ORD, DEN, and to a lesser degree IAH are the domestic powerhouses.

For a hub to get service to a long haul destination outside of those specific functions, there must be a large O&D component or it must be a flight to a JV partner hub. Its not hard to fill planes to LHR from any of UA's hubs so thats a slam dunk. ORD, IAD, and SFO all have massive O&D to Europe so that explains their large amount of service to Europe. IAH-AMS is a market rich in O&D and fare premiums so that explains its existence.

In order for DEN (or IAH for that matter) to obtain new service to a destination in Europe or Asia that is not a JV partner hub, it has to justify it off of O&D and fare premiums both. IAH-CDG has that, but AF gets the lions share of the fare premiums and always has so that may not be worth while. DEN doesnt have either so its not worthwhile. AMS is much more concentrated to specific markets than a market like CDG. Its O&D to the US is nowhere near as spread out. That makes starting a flight from anywhere to there more challenging for UA.

In the end, if you live in a UA hub city, you have to be comfortable with whatever your city's focus is. That said, you dont have to connect through other UA hubs to go long haul. Ive never connected through SFO to go to Asia, I always use NRT. For Europe, LHR, AMS, FRA, or MUC gives me enough to play with that I can avoid EWR like the plague. That is changing for my trip to JNB in a couple of weeks but that was because the business class fare was so dirt cheap I couldnt ignore it.

manny wrote:

Why does UA always treat DEN like the bastard child of its network.

Uh, UA's been growing DEN like crazy lately...

manny wrote:

With the kind of traffic that DEN commands there should be a lot more international connections.

UA has gone from zero transatlantic flights a handful of years ago to 4x daily this upcoming summer. Do you have data showing that UA is shafting DEN with respect to what the market can support?

manny wrote:

Would love to see more transatlantic and at least one nonstop Indian flight from DEN.

Much larger markets such as BOS don't even have nonstops to India yet. Given its geography, I'd consider DEN pretty lucky to have the level of intercontinental service it already has.

manny wrote:

Why does UA always treat DEN like the bastard child of its network. With the kind of traffic that DEN commands there should be a lot more international connections. Would love to see more transatlantic and atleast one nonstop Indian flight from DEN.

The shortest viable India route (I use "short" and "viable" very loosely!!) would be DEN-DEL, which has similar operating constraints to UA's most performance-intensive route, JNB-EWR. With that said, from a flow perspective, DEN-DEL would likely cannibalize traffic on ORD-DEL, with a smaller local market. I don't see DEN-India coming any time soon. The most likely international growth at DEN will be more Europe, perhaps TLV, and additional Latin America.

United is pulling out of Fort Walton Beach-Destin
https://news.yahoo.com/united-airlines- ... 01730.html

LAXdude1023 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

In order for DEN (or IAH for that matter) to obtain new service to a destination in Europe or Asia that is not a JV partner hub, it has to justify it off of O&D and fare premiums both. IAH-CDG has that, but AF gets the lions share of the fare premiums and always has so that may not be worth while.

Paris isn't historically a great business market on it's own.

IAH-CDG was only sustained by CO because of the downline oil traffic to Africa that was fed by AF. Once CO left Skyteam and joined Star, the traffic shifted to other hubs (FRA), other carriers (AF) or were attempted by CO/UA alone (IAH-LOS).

Just a reminder that this is the Network Thread. Many of you requested separate Fleet and Network threads, so now the threads will have to be moderated accordingly.

✈️ atcsundevil

airzim wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

In order for DEN (or IAH for that matter) to obtain new service to a destination in Europe or Asia that is not a JV partner hub, it has to justify it off of O&D and fare premiums both. IAH-CDG has that, but AF gets the lions share of the fare premiums and always has so that may not be worth while.

Paris isn't historically a great business market on it's own.

IAH-CDG was only sustained by CO because of the downline oil traffic to Africa that was fed by AF. Once CO left Skyteam and joined Star, the traffic shifted to other hubs (FRA), other carriers (AF) or were attempted by CO/UA alone (IAH-LOS).

AF carries the Schlumberger contract and UA never broke into that (but neither did CO). That is a huge a piece of the premium market. Given the position of UA's other hubs, it makes sense to me why UA doesnt fly IAH-CDG or why it wont start it from DEN.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

airzim wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Paris isn't historically a great business market on it's own.

IAH-CDG was only sustained by CO because of the downline oil traffic to Africa that was fed by AF. Once CO left Skyteam and joined Star, the traffic shifted to other hubs (FRA), other carriers (AF) or were attempted by CO/UA alone (IAH-LOS).

AF carries the Schlumberger contract and UA never broke into that (but neither did CO). That is a huge a piece of the premium market. Given the position of UA's other hubs, it makes sense to me why UA doesnt fly IAH-CDG or why it wont start it from DEN.

Agree. The fact that there is really only 1 corporate agreement that can justify a daily service from IAH-CDG, shows how weak the Paris market is for business traffic. Coupled with the fact that Houston is a terrible tourist market and has a generally mono-focused travel sector (Oil and Gas), as opposed to SFO, there's not much to work with that other hubs (IAD, ORD, EWR) can't otherwise more profitably take.

airzim wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

airzim wrote:

Paris isn't historically a great business market on it's own.

IAH-CDG was only sustained by CO because of the downline oil traffic to Africa that was fed by AF. Once CO left Skyteam and joined Star, the traffic shifted to other hubs (FRA), other carriers (AF) or were attempted by CO/UA alone (IAH-LOS).

AF carries the Schlumberger contract and UA never broke into that (but neither did CO). That is a huge a piece of the premium market. Given the position of UA's other hubs, it makes sense to me why UA doesnt fly IAH-CDG or why it wont start it from DEN.

Agree. The fact that there is really only 1 corporate agreement that can justify a daily service from IAH-CDG, shows how weak the Paris market is for business traffic. Coupled with the fact that Houston is a terrible tourist market and has a generally mono-focused travel sector (Oil and Gas), as opposed to SFO, there's not much to work with that other hubs (IAD, ORD, EWR) can't otherwise more profitably take.

What Houston does have a lot of, especially compared to a place like Denver, is ethnic travel. Of course that doesnt help a case for IAH-CDG. It is one of the reasons why markets like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are so heavily served by UA. Its also a reason we have a lot of foreign flags even though we have no tourism market to speak of (outside shoppers from Latin America).

LAXdude1023 wrote:

airzim wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

AF carries the Schlumberger contract and UA never broke into that (but neither did CO). That is a huge a piece of the premium market. Given the position of UA's other hubs, it makes sense to me why UA doesnt fly IAH-CDG or why it wont start it from DEN.

Agree. The fact that there is really only 1 corporate agreement that can justify a daily service from IAH-CDG, shows how weak the Paris market is for business traffic. Coupled with the fact that Houston is a terrible tourist market and has a generally mono-focused travel sector (Oil and Gas), as opposed to SFO, there's not much to work with that other hubs (IAD, ORD, EWR) can't otherwise more profitably take.

What Houston does have a lot of, especially compared to a place like Denver, is ethnic travel. Of course that doesnt help a case for IAH-CDG. It is one of the reasons why markets like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are so heavily served by UA. Its also a reason we have a lot of foreign flags even though we have no tourism market to speak of (outside shoppers from Latin America).

Houston has a lot of health/academia related traffic

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEB ... id=US%3Aen
According to this article, IAH-SYD resumes on March 26, SFO-Bangalore on May 26, LAX-MEL on March 4.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

United is pulling out of Fort Walton Beach-Destin
https://news.yahoo.com/united-airlines- ... 01730.html

These types of contractures that we are seeing due to pilot shortages will of course help carriers staying behind, but I get nervous when it comes to microcuts to feed at a hub like Houston.

Hopefully the pilot spigot will open up again soon

UA is ceding so many small markets. Some of the other carriers have but UA has just dumped a couple dozen at least. Started the newest round at IAH dumping SJT and ABI even with subsidy money available then CLL and so many other markets including VPS now. Yet they are starting Texarkana with a subsidy. Is the regional shortage still that bad?

FlyingSicilian wrote:

Is the regional shortage still that bad?

Yes, and pilot availability is actually getting worse across the industry. On top of that, and also related, UAL has been very public about its "United Next" plan where aircraft will be up-gauged across the network with most of the smallest aircraft (50-seat RJs) departing the fleet.

From a network perspective one can easily see transformation across mainline and the regionals. 2022 is only the beginning with hundreds of new mainline aircraft on order with aggressive delivery schedules. The network will look very different in 2026 compared to pre-Covid 2019.

For context, UA is currently hiring ~50 mainline pilots a week (with some classes flexing up to 65) so UAL is actually one of the major driving forces of the pilot shortage at the regional level. Meanwhile, UA typically has 400-500 pilots retire a year.

This may have been answered already, but now that F9 is leaving EWR and the new terminal A is opening this year, what’s UA’s future like at EWR in the next few years?

FlyingSicilian wrote:

UA is ceding so many small markets. Some of the other carriers have but UA has just dumped a couple dozen at least. Started the newest round at IAH dumping SJT and ABI even with subsidy money available then CLL and so many other markets including VPS now. Yet they are starting Texarkana with a subsidy. Is the regional shortage still that bad?

UA is dumping small markets because it has the most to dump. It's cutting CR2/E145 much later than DL or AA, and still had dozens more U.S. destinations as of the October data in the DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report (even while having lower domestic ASMs). It has nearly 2.5x the number of U.S. destinations as WN, which shows you don't need to go everywhere to make good money.

This is an german article about planned routes with the A321XLR. Chief of Network Planinng says the XLRs will fly to Europe and South America exclusively. Next to replacing airplanes on existing routes they will open up many new routes. A few XLRs will be delivered in 2024, with huge numbers of deliveries starting from 2025. This BTW is when AA already received more than half of their XLR order.

https://www.aero.de/news-41650/United-will-mit-A321XLR-neue-Ziele-in-Europa-erschliessen.html

I think that they will serve many of the old Continental Airlines destinations that United dropped over the years.

Belfast, Glasgow, Birmingham, Bristol, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Stuttgart and maybe also Dusseldorf and places like Lyons, Marseille, Toulouse or Bilbao. Many interesting opportunities.

DLHAM wrote:

This is an german article about planned routes with the A321XLR. Chief of Network Planinng says the XLRs will fly to Europe and South America exclusively. Next to replacing airplanes on existing routes they will open up many new routes. A few XLRs will be delivered in 2024, with huge numbers of deliveries starting from 2025. This BTW is when AA already received more than half of their XLR order.

https://www.aero.de/news-41650/United-will-mit-A321XLR-neue-Ziele-in-Europa-erschliessen.html

I think that they will serve many of the old Continental Airlines destinations that United dropped over the years.

Belfast, Glasgow, Birmingham, Bristol, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Stuttgart and maybe also Dusseldorf and places like Lyons, Marseille, Toulouse or Bilbao. Many interesting opportunities.

Looks like IAH will be getting some international expansion love again!

TWA772LR wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

This is an german article about planned routes with the A321XLR. Chief of Network Planinng says the XLRs will fly to Europe and South America exclusively. Next to replacing airplanes on existing routes they will open up many new routes. A few XLRs will be delivered in 2024, with huge numbers of deliveries starting from 2025. This BTW is when AA already received more than half of their XLR order.

https://www.aero.de/news-41650/United-will-mit-A321XLR-neue-Ziele-in-Europa-erschliessen.html

I think that they will serve many of the old Continental Airlines destinations that United dropped over the years.

Belfast, Glasgow, Birmingham, Bristol, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Stuttgart and maybe also Dusseldorf and places like Lyons, Marseille, Toulouse or Bilbao. Many interesting opportunities.

Looks like IAH will be getting some international expansion love again!

Can imagine quite some SA routes from IAH. Example route mentioned in the article was NY to Bogota.

DLHAM wrote:

This is an german article about planned routes with the A321XLR. Chief of Network Planinng says the XLRs will fly to Europe and South America exclusively. Next to replacing airplanes on existing routes they will open up many new routes. A few XLRs will be delivered in 2024, with huge numbers of deliveries starting from 2025. This BTW is when AA already received more than half of their XLR order.

Thanks, I had a look at that article but it's just a rehash of the information published last week at https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ness-class.

Between JetBlue's A321LR and American Airlines' A321XLR the single-aisle trans-Atlantic market is really going to be heating up by the time United gets going there.

Be careful to keep fleet discussion in the fleet thread.

adamblang wrote:

Be careful to keep fleet discussion in the fleet thread.

This is kind of why I haven’t liked the changes to fleet and network threads across this site. Fleet and networks are so critically united. Sometimes you have to discuss the complexities of a network to discuss a type and vice versa.
Grr.
Let’s change all these to the quarterly-full-thread-for-each-airline thing.

intotheair wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

This is kind of why I haven’t liked the changes to fleet and network threads across this site. Fleet and networks are so critically united. Sometimes you have to discuss the complexities of a network to discuss a type and vice versa.
Grr.
Let’s change all these to the quarterly-full-thread-for-each-airline thing.

Count me in as one of those who preferred having the combined thread as well. It seemed like it was mostly a vocal minority that preferred separate threads. We're only eight days into the new year, and it's already pretty clear how close the two conversations are. As I see it, both threads are similarly linked topics with all the same people posting in them anyway.

I'm in agreement with both of you that it worked better as a combined thread. Honestly though, I got tired of dealing with people who didn't like it constantly pestering us to split it, or the regular questions of, "Why does (airline) get two threads but United only gets one?" I tried to give it enough time to convince people that it was the better choice, but several people refused to give it a chance. Unfortunately now it creates additional work for us having to moderate two threads accordingly, and it eliminates the opportunity for cross discussion between two closely linked discussions. I hate deleting perfectly good posts just because they were posted to the wrong discussion, but I no longer have that option. That was half the reason I combined the threads in the first place was for more free-flowing discussion.

I used to be pretty active in United discussions, but dealing with some users over this issue is the reason I'm largely absent from this topic now. My apologies to everyone who preferred the combined approach, but the vocal few won out on this argument.

In any case, let's please return to discussing the topic, United Network. Please direct any further discussion about the thread arrangement to Site Related.

✈️ atcsundevil

atcsundevil wrote:

intotheair wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

This is kind of why I haven’t liked the changes to fleet and network threads across this site. Fleet and networks are so critically united. Sometimes you have to discuss the complexities of a network to discuss a type and vice versa.
Grr.
Let’s change all these to the quarterly-full-thread-for-each-airline thing.

Count me in as one of those who preferred having the combined thread as well. It seemed like it was mostly a vocal minority that preferred separate threads. We're only eight days into the new year, and it's already pretty clear how close the two conversations are. As I see it, both threads are similarly linked topics with all the same people posting in them anyway.

I'm in agreement with both of you that it worked better as a combined thread. Honestly though, I got tired of dealing with people who didn't like it constantly pestering us to split it, or the regular questions of, "Why does (airline) get two threads but United only gets one?" I tried to give it enough time to convince people that it was the better choice, but several people refused to give it a chance. Unfortunately now it creates additional work for us having to moderate two threads accordingly, and it eliminates the opportunity for cross discussion between two closely linked discussions. I hate deleting perfectly good posts just because they were posted to the wrong discussion, but I no longer have that option. That was half the reason I combined the threads in the first place was for more free-flowing discussion.

I used to be pretty active in United discussions, but dealing with some users over this issue is the reason I'm largely absent from this topic now. My apologies to everyone who preferred the combined approach, but the vocal few won out on this argument.

In any case, let's please return to discussing the topic, United Network. Please direct any further discussion about the thread arrangement to Site Related.

✈️ atcsundevil

Discussion started in Site Related "2022 United Airlines Thread Decision/Discussion"... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1469023

[list=][/list]

From a network planning perspective, I'm guessing Fort Walton Beach/Destin was getting pressure from the growing Allegiant Airlines presence as well. I can't imagine there was much pricing power in the local market to typical destinations.

Delta has ceded some markets out of Salt Lake City as well. This feels like consolidation of service through attrition instead of mergers. Natural effect of the various forces at work (aircraft age, pilot availability, etc).

Just how many can UA tolerate exiting without starting to spiral the hub downwards? Didn't Smisek already try this before?

sldispatcher wrote:

Just how many can UA tolerate exiting without starting to spiral the hub downwards? Didn't Smisek already try this before?

That’s a bit dramatic. United added gobs of new markets during the pandemic. Many are still here. And Kirby’s vision for the future includes huge upgauging and expansion.

Regional pilots are in short supply right now. Some markets have to give.

sldispatcher wrote:

[list=][/list]

From a network planning perspective, I'm guessing Fort Walton Beach/Destin was getting pressure from the growing Allegiant Airlines presence as well. I can't imagine there was much pricing power in the local market to typical destinations.

Delta has ceded some markets out of Salt Lake City as well. This feels like consolidation of service through attrition instead of mergers. Natural effect of the various forces at work (aircraft age, pilot availability, etc).

Just how many can UA tolerate exiting without starting to spiral the hub downwards? Didn't Smisek already try this before?

It was interesting. The article I read about it, they said that United hopes to return in about a year, assuming pilot shortage issues have eased. I don't know if it was just the airport hoping that was true.

This discussion is about United's network — not the network of other airlines.

✈️ atcsundevil

Looks like they extended the 5x weekly SFO-PPT past February (when the 2x extra flights start). The route initially started at 3x weekly in 2018.

cosyr wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

[list=][/list]

From a network planning perspective, I'm guessing Fort Walton Beach/Destin was getting pressure from the growing Allegiant Airlines presence as well. I can't imagine there was much pricing power in the local market to typical destinations.

Delta has ceded some markets out of Salt Lake City as well. This feels like consolidation of service through attrition instead of mergers. Natural effect of the various forces at work (aircraft age, pilot availability, etc).

Just how many can UA tolerate exiting without starting to spiral the hub downwards? Didn't Smisek already try this before?

It was interesting. The article I read about it, they said that United hopes to return in about a year, assuming pilot shortage issues have eased. I don't know if it was just the airport hoping that was true.

That’s good to see that it is more temporary than anything
United route planners were on a real roll for a while but the different forces at play certainly put a hamper on that.

The Innovation Gates down at B21 - B24 at ORD show that UA has some new gate information displays planned. They have started rolling out these new screens to a few gates at ORD outside of the innovation gates. Any idea when other airports will see these?

intotheair wrote:

amtravels wrote:

The Innovation Gates down at B21 - B24 at ORD show that UA has some new gate information displays planned. They have started rolling out these new screens to a few gates at ORD outside of the innovation gates. Any idea when other airports will see these?

Is this similar to what they've been trialing at the new B gates at DEN? Those gates don't have a typical gate agent desk but a small podium instead, as well as a handful of self-serve touch kiosks.


Source: https://thepointsguy.com/news/denver-ai ... w-b-gates/

That's funny. I flew out of B7 last week, and didn't even notice that there wasn't a traditional desk. What I did notice was how clean and crisp all those signs were. Some of the ones hanging from the ceiling, I didn't even realize they weren't permanent printed signs until the changed to display something else.

intotheair wrote:

amtravels wrote:

The Innovation Gates down at B21 - B24 at ORD show that UA has some new gate information displays planned. They have started rolling out these new screens to a few gates at ORD outside of the innovation gates. Any idea when other airports will see these?

Is this similar to what they've been trialing at the new B gates at DEN? Those gates don't have a typical gate agent desk but a small podium instead, as well as a handful of self-serve touch kiosks.


Source: https://thepointsguy.com/news/denver-ai ... w-b-gates/

Haven’t seen any of those kiosks yet but I’ll take a look around when I’m back at ORD next Thursday. This seems like a great idea to free up gate space and reshuffle personnel, but I wonder how well this will work during IRROPS? I imagine the customer service center at the airport will see the majority of pax needing help in those situations?