johnyv
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:23 am

UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:50 am

I have often wondered, why does UA even bother at CMH anymore. At it's peak, you could always catch a MAINLINE flight to DEN, ORD and a CO MAINLINE flight to IAH, EWR! Presently, there is 1 mainline RT flight, everyday to ORD. I do not understand why UA has subbed everything out to RJ's. DL does all mainline to ATL. AA does all mainline to DFW, PHX, LAX and often 1 flight to CLT. Why can't CMH support more mainline to UA cities? In addition, UA/CO staff was retired or moved to make way for cheap labor ( and from what I have heard, this has not got well for the CMH station), adding to the frustation. Why has UA given up on CMH? The only answer I can deduce is they have allowed WN to move in and dominate their former hub cities; they have mainline NON-STOP flights to all of those city pairs except for Houston. Why is CMH reduced to a RJ city for UA?. I simply do not understand.

[Edited 2015-01-10 16:52:28]
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:15 am

Why don't you ask this question here:

The Rest Of Ohio (CMH/DAY/TOL/CAK/YNG) Thread (by DeltaRules Nov 1 2014 in Civil Aviation)


You already posted there.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:45 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
Why is CMH reduced to a RJ city for UA?. I simply do not understand.

Maybe UA just doesn't have the mainline narrow body aircraft to do it. That is, they've re-deployed the mainline aircraft to more important (read: more profitable) routes and haven't been able to replace them with anything other than RJs.

I had a good chat with a long time UAL manager recently and he said (more than once) that UAL is still searching for used narrow body mainline aircraft and that they need many (he gave me a number that I'm loathe to repeat here). You probably already know that they've recently acquired used 2 73Gs.

[Edited 2015-01-10 18:17:49]
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:54 am

Maybe CHM isn't that important
 
User avatar
Tigerguy
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:54 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
Why is CMH reduced to a RJ city for UA?. I simply do not understand.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. CMH is not alone in this recent trend. OKC currently sees a lone A319 to IAH for mainline, with a mix of regional equipment for all other UA flights. Between the aircraft in the fleet and what this market will bear, I don't see that changing anytime soon. It must be said, though, that the presence of the E170/175 is increasing, which is still a nice ride, especially compared to the 145.
Good night, and keep watching the skis. Uh, skies.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:51 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 2):
I had a good chat with a long time UAL manager recently and he said (more than once) that UAL is still searching for used narrow body mainline aircraft and that they need many (he gave me a number that I'm loathe to repeat here).

Makes me wonder why they got rid of the -500s....AGAIN!
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
TonyBurr
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:00 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:57 am

I remain amazed that people wonder why UA has become so terrible. It is spelled S M I S E K. They are not going to use mainline when they can get the cheaper RJ's. UA has given up not just on CMH, but many places. It is all about $$. CS is dead at UA.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2742
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:28 am

CMH is also a crew base/mtc base for Republic/Shuttle America. That probably drives a lot of decision making in the market.
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:02 am

Oodles of stations around the country that saw frequent mainline service from UA and CO as recently as the mid-2000s gradually transitioned to regional jets beginning in the late 2000s. The situation isn't unique to CMH. DTW, for example, was all mainline to ORD, DEN & IAH as recently as summer 2008... but summer 2015, not a single mainline (!) flight is scheduled (but this will likely change). The surge in RJ is for a multitude of reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread, but in the upcoming years will gradually change.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:09 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
I have often wondered, why does UA even bother at CMH anymore.

You know, you could ask this question about every medium-sized market in the continental U.S. United is RJ-only or very close to RJ-only in countless stations that see DL mainline. That's just the way the UA network is right now.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
doulasc
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:12 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:16 am

when United started operations at CMH after the new terminal was built in 1958 all their flights went to Chicago or
Washington DC. later they added a nonstop to DEN.
 
DeltaRules
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:19 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
DL does all mainline to ATL. AA does all mainline to DFW, PHX, LAX and often 1 flight to CLT.

For about a year and a half before the merger (2006-2008), DL really skimped out on mainline ATL-CMH. I think it was something like 1 738, 2 E70/CR7, 2 CRJ, 1 ERJ a day. I have to wonder if it would still be that way if FL didn't come to town, because that put the stun gun to DL- as soon as they announced ATL-CMH, DL went right back to 1 757, 5 M88 a day, and there hasn't been an RJ to be found since.

I think AA's all-mainline to DFW is brand new.
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B717/722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
cvg2lga
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:48 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:08 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 2):
I had a good chat with a long time UAL manager recently and he said (more than once) that UAL is still searching for used narrow body mainline aircraft and that they need many (he gave me a number that I'm loathe to repeat here). You probably already know that they've recently acquired used 2 73Gs.
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):
Makes me wonder why they got rid of the -500s....AGAIN!

From what I've heard the past couple of months- we are looking to bring back the 737-500's.
I certainly hope this comes to fruition.

Tchau

DA-
They don't call em' emergencies anymore. They call em' Patronies.
 
ipodguy7
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:44 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:20 am

BNA shares your pain, UA simply refuses to fly anything but the ERJ to Nashville, even though almost every AA(+US)/DL flight is operated on A/C with F cabins, UA very rarely flies anything in larger than the ERJ-145. Further, AA and DL both operate their respective clubs in terminals B and C, while UA has no club presence in Nashville. It is frustrating to say the least. I understand that BNA is a large Embraer mantainence facility, but it still is ridiculous that both AA and DL fly many mainline flights and all we get from UA is RJs. It certaintly does not help their local marketshare and only drives high-yield pax to Oneworld/Skyteam.

[Edited 2015-01-10 23:21:48]
AA/DL/NW/CO/UA/US/B6/AS/AC/FI/NY/EI/BD/BA/AF/AZ/DY/SK/QF/JQ/JL
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3645
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:31 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
Why is CMH reduced to a RJ city for UA?. I simply do not understand.

There's one big reason. UA doesn't have a mega-hub like DL (ATL), and AA (DFW). They naturally have larger gauge aircraft. Take out those two hubs, and there's only a few CMH mainline flights left that aren't required because of range (LAX, PHX), leaving UA on equal footing. Instead UA has service to large, but smaller hubs in four directions from CMH, making for great worldwide coverage.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5335
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:04 am

Why does United do it? easy, UA management believe more in RJs and excuses than AA or DL.

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
DL does all mainline to ATL.

as well as summer MSP mainline and LAX mainline

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 14):
There's one big reason. UA doesn't have a mega-hub

err They have a pretty big hub at both ORD and IAH. Both are, IIRC north of 500 flights a day.

EWR is also quite close to 500 flights a day IIRC.

as I said above Delta has a mainline flight to MSP which is the same size or smaller than United's largest hub. AA has mainline to PHX/CLT both of which are smaller or the same size as DEN/EWR/IAH for United.
So that excuse doesn't really fly here.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:05 am

If you can believe it, CMH is down to just 6 airlines these days: AA, AC, DL, UA, US, and WN. CMH also sees a few international charters (operated by various airlines) under the Vacation Express brand, while G4 is the sole operator at the other Columbus airport LCK.

WN has been the largest carrier at CMH for years. The FL acquisition eliminated the only major LCC competitor in the market and strengthened WN's leading position in Columbus. Following the addition of CMH-DCA I think we could very well see WN try to win over even more local business travelers with CMH-LGA and/or CMH-BOS. Other new route possibilities could be CMH-HOU or even nonstop international services to the likes of CUN.

DL has been the second largest carrier at CMH for years. DL's strong position in the Columbus market is reflected by the carrier's continued ability to operate a number of p2p routes from CMH to business and leisure markets (BOS, CUN, LAX, MCO, RDU, RSW and TPA). However, it may be worth noting that DL's only mainline routes from CMH are ATL, CUN, and LAX. Everything else is operated by some sort of regional equipment.

AA has never been a major player at CMH, but it will be upon completion of the merger with US. US has a lot of history at CMH, and I'm not just talking about HP. A look back to 1995 (see link below) reminds us that America West and USAir were the two biggest airlines in Columbus at that time. History isn't everything - WN and DL have obviously both come a long way in Columbus since then - but US nevertheless brings a notable CMH FFer base into the AA fold.

http://www.departedflights.com/CMH95intro.html

So then who does that leave as the weakest domestic operator at CMH? UA of course. That said, UA has a very respectable and competitive operation from CMH to DEN, EWR, IAD, IAH, and ORD. The schedules on all routes are good, and each route has at least one frequency operated by an "explus" CR7 or E-170 that offers key amenities like F, Y+, and (soon) Wi-Fi. If you really want to get specific, consider the alternatives. There is no other nonstop operator between Columbus and Houston. AA/US uses nothing but regional equipment on its CMH-DCA, CMH-JFK, CMH-LGA, and CMH-ORD routes. You won't find any DL mainline on CMH-LGA or CMH-JFK either. WN does offer a mainline product to BWI, DEN, and MDW, but if want an F product or miles that can be used for something more exotic than LAX or CUN, UA might just be the way to go. I also can't help but wonder if there might be a business case for SFO-CMH. Columbus is now the 4th largest market in the country without nonstop UA service to SFO, after Detroit, Tampa, and Charlotte. If the similarly sized fellow Midwestern IND market can get UA to add SFO, why not CMH?
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:27 am

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 16):
AA has never been a major player at CMH, but it will be upon completion of the merger with US. US has a lot of history at CMH, and I'm not just talking about HP. A look back to 1995 (see link below) reminds us that America West and USAir were the two biggest airlines in Columbus at that time. History isn't everything - WN and DL have obviously both come a long way in Columbus since then - but US nevertheless brings a notable CMH FFer base into the AA fold.

HP closed its CMH hub in cooperation with DL assuming HP's obligations with Chautauqua, which operated the bulk of CMH. Hence DL's growth at CMH.

Again... what happened in CMH has more to do with UA than its position at CMH.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:36 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 2):
That is, they've re-deployed the mainline aircraft to more important (read: more profitable) routes and haven't been able to replace them with anything other than RJs.

No -- it's the fact they don't have the proper amount of mainline aircraft to go around at the moment which is their own fault. Call up DL -- they seem to work mainline at CMH just fine. FYI: sUA flew 320 to ORD and sCO flew 733 to EWR before the merger.

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 6):

I remain amazed that people wonder why UA has become so terrible. It is spelled S M I S E K.

Yep.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:14 am

Quoting johnyv (Thread starter):
I do not understand why UA has subbed everything out to RJ's

There are a lot of us in the same mid-sized city markets that lost a lot of mainline. We share your pain.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 18):
-- it's the fact they don't have the proper amount of mainline aircraft to go around at the moment which is their own fault

A quick look at one online source shows the disparity of the UA narrowbody mainline fleet to the competition. I believe UA's average stage length is also a bit longer than anyone else's so that eats up additional frames as well.

UA: 8 hubs - LAX-SFO-DEN-IAH-ORD-IAD-EWR-GUM
Fleet: 529 narrowbody (66/hub) - 163 widebody = 692 total

DL: 7 hubs - SEA-LAX-SLC-MSP-DTW-ATL-NYC
Fleet: 615 narrowbody (87/hub) - 158 widebody = 773 total

AA: 7 hubs - LAX-PHX-DFW-ORD-NYC-CLT-MIA
Fleet: 818 narrowbody (116/hub) - 150 widebody = 968 total
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5487
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 19):


AA: 7 hubs - LAX-PHX-DFW-ORD-NYC-CLT-MIA
Fleet: 818 narrowbody (116/hub) - 150 widebody = 968 total

You forgot a biggie here: PHL.
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:09 pm

correction:

AA: 8 hubs -- LAX-PHX-DFW-ORD-NYC-PHL-CLT-MIA
Fleet: 818 narrowbody (102/hub)
 
DeltaRules
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 18):
Call up DL -- they seem to work mainline at CMH just fine. FYI: sUA flew 320 to ORD and sCO flew 733 to EWR before the merger.

757s seemed to be regularly seen up to the early 2000s and again sporadically through the 2000s. Right around the time of the merger, UA ran a 757 on a DEN-CMH-ORD turn for a few months.
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B717/722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
johnyv
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:23 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:42 pm

Wow, I had no idea this is happening to other cities in the Midwest as well. It seems to me if you exclude F, WN has picked up the slack (with the exception of NYC area & Houston) and has offered a MAINLINE product to all the cities that UA does.

I agree that UA seems to have a RJ state of mind. I hope this works for them. It is just sad to look at what once was and now what is.
 
User avatar
jsnww81
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:29 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 14):
Instead UA has service to large, but smaller hubs in four directions from CMH, making for great worldwide coverage.

... until a cloud appears in the sky over ORD or EWR, at which point the RJ flights from CMH are immediately canceled and nobody gets to their worldwide flights for the next two days due to high load factors.
 
ytib
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:14 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 19):
UA: 8 hubs - LAX-SFO-DEN-IAH-ORD-IAD-EWR-GUM
Fleet: 529 narrowbody (66/hub) - 163 widebody = 692 total

I think it is hard to include GUM as a hub in this context. The key takeaway is the number of aircraft in the fleet is less than DL, AA which leads to the problems. This is something which was done pre-merger when UA removed the 737s with a RJ state of mind especially in DEN leaving F9 and WN to fly mainline to many cities which by no means should have been on a CRJ or CR7.
Airbus:318,319,320,321,332,333,388
Boeing:707,717,732,733,734,73Q,735,73G,738,7M8,739,752,753,742,74L,744,762,763,772,77L,77W,789
Misc:142,CN1,CR2,CR7,DC8,DH2,DH8,D8Q,D10,D95,EM2,ER3,ER4,E70,100,J31,M11,M83,M88,M90,SF3

Where is Neil
 
Thomaas
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting johnyv (Reply 23):
I agree that UA seems to have a RJ state of mind. I hope this works for them. It is just sad to look at what once was and now what is.

Give me an E170 over any mainline aircraft any day of the week and I'll be happy. CMH is a Republic E170 base so the airport sees quite a bit of what I'd say is the most comforatble Y product in the States.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:37 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 18):
No -- it's the fact they don't have the proper amount of mainline aircraft to go around at the moment which is their own fault. Call up DL -- they seem to work mainline at CMH just fine. FYI: sUA flew 320 to ORD and sCO flew 733 to EWR before the merger.

That is the essence of what I've posted. Further, UA is now looking for used mainline narrow body aircraft (so, yes, behind the power curve compared to DL). To me, it's symbolic of the "management by spreadsheet" mentality - you don't see the need for anything in advance because by their nature, spreadsheets are primarily reactive. That is, the data that's on them represents something that's already happened.

Quoting cvg2lga (Reply 12):
From what I've heard the past couple of months- we are looking to bring back the 737-500's.

I've heard that rumor, too, several times in fact. Apparently, the 100 seat gap wasn't obvious to those with their noses buried in spreadsheets. At this date, I doubt that it will happen; I'm expecting UA to keep searching for 737NGs and A319/320s. I wonder if COPA will become a source again.

It might help if UA's senior management would visit the terminals from time to time (and no, I don't mean host employee meetings where they control the message) and chat with the employees and customers (to find out what's going on beyond the borders of their reports).
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:55 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 27):
It might help if UA's senior management would visit the terminals from time to time (and no, I don't mean host employee meetings where they control the message) and chat with the employees

ALPA's MEC Chairman is a member on UA's Board of Directors. Your station managers must do some sort of periodic reporting back to WHQ. Is anyone getting these concerns to people that can change things? I find it very hard to believe that everyone from the top down thinks that things are just fine 'as is'.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 27):
That is the essence of what I've posted. Further, UA is now looking for used mainline narrow body aircraft (so, yes, behind the power curve compared to DL). To me, it's symbolic of the "management by spreadsheet" mentality - you don't see the need for anything in advance because by their nature, spreadsheets are primarily reactive. That is, the data that's on them represents something that's already happened.

"Management by Spreadsheet" mentality + slow to adapt to market conditions = loss of market share. They've been very quiet on when they will be acquiring new aircraft -- probably because there really aren't any out there that fit the profile of what they need.

I'm curious as how many people fly UA at CMH these day when majority are on RJs. In 2012 they flew DEN-CMH with A320s. I guess that got pulled as well.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
jayunited
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 18):
No -- it's the fact they don't have the proper amount of mainline aircraft to go around at the moment which is their own fault. Call up DL -- they seem to work mainline at CMH just fine. FYI: sUA flew 320 to ORD and sCO flew 733 to EWR before the merger.
Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 19):
A quick look at one online source shows the disparity of the UA narrowbody mainline fleet to the competition. I believe UA's average stage length is also a bit longer than anyone else's so that eats up additional frames as well.

UA: 8 hubs - LAX-SFO-DEN-IAH-ORD-IAD-EWR-GUM
Fleet: 529 narrowbody (66/hub) - 163 widebody = 692 total

DL: 7 hubs - SEA-LAX-SLC-MSP-DTW-ATL-NYC
Fleet: 615 narrowbody (87/hub) - 158 widebody = 773 total

AA: 7 hubs - LAX-PHX-DFW-ORD-NYC-CLT-MIA
Fleet: 818 narrowbody (116/hub) - 150 widebody = 968 total

Both of you are absolutely correct UA does not have enough narrowbody aircraft in its fleet and although UA has stated it is looking for used narrowbody aircraft so far nothing has been done to erase the 100 737 sUA retired before the merger and nothing has been done to replace all of the sCO 735 and the sUA 757's that have been retired. Although UA has taken delivery of quite a few 739ers it wasn't a 1 for 1 replacement UA was retiring the sCO 735's and sUA 752 at a much faster rate than what was being delivered. And like tommy767 said UA has no one to blame but themselves and still to this date no real action has been taken to deal with this problem all UA has said is they are looking for used narrowbodies, while DL on the other hand has taken action and have purchase quite a few used narrowbody planes to reduce their dependance on the increasing unpopular smaller RJ's.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:16 pm

Quoting cvg2lga (Reply 12):
From what I've heard the past couple of months- we are looking to bring back the 737-500's.
Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 27):
I've heard that rumor, too, several times in fact. Apparently, the 100 seat gap wasn't obvious to those with their noses buried in spreadsheets. At this date, I doubt that it will happen; I'm expecting UA to keep searching for 737NGs and A319/320s. I wonder if COPA will become a source again.

The "return of the 735" is nothing more than a baseless rumor.
- The former sUA have been parked for at least 5 years. Returning these aircraft to service is simply cost prohibitive, especially for a short duration (not to mention that most of these aircraft have been sold).
- The former sCO aircraft have all been sold / returned to lessor and have subsequently found new homes.

---

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 29):
"Management by Spreadsheet" mentality + slow to adapt to market conditions = loss of market share. They've been very quiet on when they will be acquiring new aircraft -- probably because there really aren't any out there that fit the profile of what they need.

In 2008-2009, UA intentionally relinquished market share by focusing on higher-yielding fares that could generate profits and stop chasing money-losing, low-yielding fares (re: regional jets replacing mainline). CO had begun doing so many years before. The merged UA had a higher concentration of 50-seat RJ, as a derivative of this strategy as well as the handicapness of pilot scope causes.

The network's gradually being overhauled as 76-seaters come on board, but the lack of mainline aircraft + the value to UA is slightly exaggerated on here. UA has a much more balanced network than DL than alleviates the need to fly larger, mainline aircraft disproportionately to one hub. And many of the small markets seeing significant upgauging from DL are in the Southeast... as DL winds down its 50-seat fleet, a plethora of small (re: ones that can't support mainline to ATL) Midwestern/Northeastern markets are seeing significant capacity decreases.

[Edited 2015-01-11 13:18:41]
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
flyCMH
Posts: 2295
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 1999 12:15 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:21 pm

Effective 05MAR14, CMH-ORD on UA goes from 8x daily (1 319, 4 E70, 3 E45) to 7x daily (2 319, 1 73G, 3 E70, 1 E45). That will be the most mainline UA has sent into CMH in years.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:27 pm

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 32):
Effective 05MAR14, CMH-ORD on UA goes from 8x daily (1 319, 4 E70, 3 E45) to 7x daily (2 319, 1 73G, 3 E70, 1 E45). That will be the most mainline UA has sent into CMH in years.


It's not just CMH. There's a swing in movements between ORD (increase in mainline, decrease in large regional jets / overall flights) and IAH (decrease in mainline / increase in large regional jets).
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:05 pm

The answer is that UA just can't be all things to all people ( or stations). There simply aren't enough mainline aircraft to operate a beefy flight schedule to all the destinations they serve. Since the merger, one of the things management has concentrated on has been high frequency service in major business markets. That has pulled A320's and 738's off runs like CMH-DEN, and put it on things like IAH-LAX, or SFO-EWR. When you fly some routes like those upwards of 8x a day, you need to pull the aircraft from somewhere. As others here have noted, many UA stations see all RJ service. Virtually the entire Southeast only has UA RJ's land at their airports.
I personally don't agree with this business plan, but that's what it is, and I've not been offered the role of CEO, so my opinion is worthless.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:18 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 28):
I find it very hard to believe that everyone from the top down thinks that things are just fine 'as is'.

Actually, that's precisely the impression that I get from my former comrades; the senior management claims things are fine, getting better all the time and the merger problems are largely behind them.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:22 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 28):
I find it very hard to believe that everyone from the top down thinks that things are just fine 'as is'.

Actually, that's precisely the impression that I get from my former comrades; the senior management claims things are fine, getting better all the time and the merger problems are largely behind them.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3645
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:23 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 15):
err They have a pretty big hub at both ORD and IAH. Both are, IIRC north of 500 flights a day.

Neither are even close to the size and scale of ATL or DFW. And they never will be. The geography and market dynamics don't allow it on a competitive basis. UA doesn't need one hub to be everything.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 15):
as I said above Delta has a mainline flight to MSP which is the same size or smaller than United's largest hub. AA has mainline to PHX/CLT both of which are smaller or the same size as DEN/EWR/IAH for United.
So that excuse doesn't really fly here.

It's not an excuse - it's reality. Proper comparisons would be CLT, ORD, and PHL for AA and MSP/DTW for DL. CLT is the 3rd largest hub in the country by my calculations and only sees 6x weekly mainline to CMH (UA to ORD has daily mainline). No mainline for ORD and PHL, mostly large RJs. MSP only sees an occasional mainline flight (about once or twice a week), and a slight majority of flights are on 50-seaters. DTW is almost all 50-seaters.

PHX has to be mainline for performance reasons. That's not a good comparison.

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 24):
... until a cloud appears in the sky over ORD or EWR, at which point the RJ flights from CMH are immediately canceled and nobody gets to their worldwide flights for the next two days due to high load factors.

And that would be the downside of having hubs where people actually want to fly to and not through.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 27):
I've heard that rumor, too, several times in fact. Apparently, the 100 seat gap wasn't obvious to those with their noses buried in spreadsheets. At this date, I doubt that it will happen; I'm expecting UA to keep searching for 737NGs and A319/320s. I wonder if COPA will become a source again.

It might help if UA's senior management would visit the terminals from time to time (and no, I don't mean host employee meetings where they control the message) and chat with the employees and customers (to find out what's going on beyond the borders of their reports).

Those are pretty ridiculous rumors. Sounds like a bunch of disgruntled employees that are causing the very things they complain of (an airline behind the competition). No wonder UA has had trouble moving forward.

The facts state that the 100-125 seat market is not very cost competitive at mainline pay scales. And that's public information that anyone can access. UA has some personnel issues, but it's not at the top. They need more people looking to do their job to the best of their ability instead of complaining about someone else not doing theirs.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 32):
Effective 05MAR14, CMH-ORD on UA goes from 8x daily (1 319, 4 E70, 3 E45) to 7x daily (2 319, 1 73G, 3 E70, 1 E45). That will be the most mainline UA has sent into CMH in years.

That's a schedule that shows very impressive for the relative hub size. It would show once again that UA is very competitive at CMH.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:25 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 37):
The facts state that the 100-125 seat market is not very cost competitive at mainline pay scales.

Yet that's precisely what UA is looking for; indeed having acquired 2 used 73Gs. And it's my understanding that their current search includes A319s, too.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3645
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:39 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 38):
Yet that's precisely what UA is looking for; indeed having acquired 2 used 73Gs.

They're not "looking" for that size. They're considerably less efficient on an operating cost basis. The 717, A319, and 73G are all in this boat. But the 73G/A319 are about the only used mainline aircraft available at the moment, and UA is only getting some if the price is right. That's why they've only acquired two. There's plenty more out there. What airlines really want are A320s and 738s, but surprise, surprise, airlines aren't shedding the more profitable airplanes.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4393
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:45 pm

I'd imagine it's more 320s available, what are the 738 and 320 availability out there?
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
tom11
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:02 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:36 pm

It's the same situation at BDL. As recently as 2 years ago, UA flew up to 7 daily R/T mainline aircraft into BDL, but this upcoming summer there will only be one -- yes, just one. What a disgrace UA is becoming. 757's and 738's to IAD have become E145's, and 757s to ORD have become E175's. Often full, and overbooked, to boot.
 
DeltaRules
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 37):
CLT is the 3rd largest hub in the country by my calculations and only sees 6x weekly mainline to CMH (UA to ORD has daily mainline). No mainline for ORD and PHL, mostly large RJs. MSP only sees an occasional mainline flight (about once or twice a week), and a slight majority of flights are on 50-seaters.

For context:

CLT has just recently gotten consistent mainline (A319) service back once a day. CMH-CLT and PHL went from mostly A319/733/734s to RJ city fairly quickly around 2006. I REALLY missed US metal when the late CLT-CMH flight in 2006 involved an RP ERJ inbound from LGA, which was hideously late both times I took it.

In the last few years, CLT has been CR7/CR9/E70/E75, while PHL gets CRJ/E70/E75 action. I've often wondered why CMH-PHL hasn't seen any E190s.

I can't remember AA running mainline on CMH-ORD since the ERJs came around even when UA had a fair bit of mainline on the same route. Maybe they had it in the early 2000s when the F100s were still around.

CMH-MSP has seen mainline on a more consistent basis of late. They were even running 2 baby 'buses a day this past Fall.

All of these routes have seen or probably will see E170s/E175s over the last few years/in the future thanks to the Republic maintenance base, which is probably a double-edged sword (less mainline, but big E-jets > CRJs any day of the week).
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B717/722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14231
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 42):
All of these routes have seen or probably will see E170s/E175s over the last few years/in the future thanks to the Republic maintenance base, which is probably a double-edged sword (less mainline, but big E-jets > CRJs any day of the week).

Places like CMH and STL probably aren't the best places to compare carriers' mainline pictures, as the presence of regional carriers' bases in those cities is going to skew the counts for those carriers that use the regionals in question. Places like BNA, MCI or BDL are probably more telling.

Quoting ytib (Reply 25):
This is something which was done pre-merger when UA removed the 737s with a RJ state of mind especially in DEN leaving F9 and WN to fly mainline to many cities which by no means should have been on a CRJ or CR7.

I don't know that the problem is RJs per se. What I'm looking for are things like punctual service, a decent airport experience and a decent onboard product. None of those is necessarily unavailable on a regional aircraft. But UA chooses to have carriers that seemingly can't be bothered to operate on time fly nasty 50-seaters into some of the worst regional facilities anywhere (IAD A, DEN high B, ORD F, IAH B84, etc.). As someone in a smaller city, UA is a choice schedule-wise on maybe half of my trips. What incentive is there for me to select UA?

[Edited 2015-01-11 18:59:33]
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting compensateme (Reply 31):
The network's gradually being overhauled as 76-seaters come on board, but the lack of mainline aircraft + the value to UA is slightly exaggerated on here. UA has a much more balanced network than DL than alleviates the need to fly larger, mainline aircraft disproportionately to one hub.

Very much disagree. There are over 250 ERJ right now in the fleet and 100 E170 coming onboard. That still leaves over 150 ERJ to be replaced (which I doubt will ever happen.)

Quoting iahworldflyer (Reply 34):
That has pulled A320's and 738's off runs like CMH-DEN, and put it on things like IAH-LAX, or SFO-EWR.

Nope. It's because they have retired 757 and have used former mainline frames on the business routes you mentioned. In this economy UA should be growing, not "steady eddieing" the domestic mainline fleet.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Boeing12345
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:13 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting compensateme (Reply 31):

sUA 737's were long gone before the merger. The sCO 737-500's are parked in Russia and have been looked at as a "all or none" package as I understand it. Some questions as to the actual owner of certain frames as hard times have come upon Russia. If the pricing and package is right these frames will be back in UAL colors; however that is not very likely to happen.
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3532
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:23 am

For the record, CMH was also outsourced during the 15 stations that were outsourced a few months ago.

-UN
What now?
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:39 am

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 39):
They're not "looking" for that size.

Will you change your position when more used 73Gs arrive at UAL?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5335
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:40 am

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 37):

Neither are even close to the size and scale of ATL or DFW. And they never will be. The geography and market dynamics don't allow it on a competitive basis. UA doesn't need one hub to be everything.

Delta or American don't have or need one hub to do everything.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 37):
MSP only sees an occasional mainline flight (about once or twice a week), and a slight majority of flights are on 50-seaters.

Showing a daily M90 in the summer.
not a single 50 seater.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 37):

The facts state that the 100-125 seat market is not very cost competitive at mainline pay scales. And that's public information that anyone can access. UA has some personnel issues, but it's not at the top. They need more people looking to do their job to the best of their ability instead of complaining about someone else not doing theirs.

so Delta, United and American are buying aircraft in that seat market because they are all ran by complete idiots then yeah?

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 39):
The 717,

er I'd love to see any data that supports that at all.......
 
rtalk25
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:14 am

RE: UA Demise At CMH

Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 16):

WN has been the largest carrier at CMH for years. The FL acquisition eliminated the only major LCC competitor in the market and strengthened WN's leading position in Columbus. Following the addition of CMH-DCA I think we could very well see WN try to win over even more local business travelers with CMH-LGA and/or CMH-BOS. Other new route possibilities could be CMH-HOU or even nonstop international services to the likes of CUN.

It did add CMH-DCA. But right now, it's only 1x daily and at afternoon timings, thus not competitive frequency wise to US/AA's CMH-DCA. CMH-ATL is only 2x daily but it's not competitive enough in frequency to Delta's service. I'd say atleast 3x daily is needed on these type of routes. Right now CMH-DCA seems opportunistic, and CMH-ATL seems like it's shrinkage from what was inherited from AirTran. Potential BOS flight(s) might be different because competition (Delta) has less frequency/seats so WN wouldn't need as much, but I'd assume atleast 2x daily would still be needed.

[Edited 2015-01-11 21:52:14]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos