May 27, 2014, 1:26 pm
Last edit by: aacharya
West Coast route cuts/additions/material changes:
LAX - 8 daily ends 1 daily starts net reduction 7 daily
LAX-PIT (1x daily)
LAX-PDX (2x daily ended)
LAX-SJC (2x daily)
LAX-BFL (Bakersfield, CA) (2x daily ended)
LAX-YLW (1x daily, moved to SFO)
4 gates in Terminal 6 leased to AA (Gates 60-63)
ADDED LAX-MEL (789)
ADDED LAX-MSP (CR7)
LAX-CLD (7x daily ending May 2015)
SFO
SFO-NRT (reduced x1 777/day, switched to HND)
SFO-LMT (Klamath Falls, OR)(ended)
SFO-MOD (Modesto, CA) (ended)
ADDED SFO-HND (1x daily 772, moved from NRT)
ADDED SFO-YLW (1x daily CR2, moved from LAX)
ADDED SFO-ATL (2x daily 738)
Expanded SFO-MSP (previously 1x daily mainline, winter 2x E75, next summer 1x E75 + 1x mainline)
Expanded SFO-STL (previously 1x daily mainline, soon 1xE75 + 1x mainline)
Expanded SFO-RDU 2x daily mainline over the summer
SEA
SEA-NRT (gone)
SEA-GEG (gone)
SEA-ANC (ended)
SEA-CLE (seasonal, gone)
PDX
PDX-SEA (ended)
PDX-EUG (ended)
PDX-RDM (ended)
PDX-CLE (seasonal, gone)
PDX-LMT (Klamath Falls, OR)(ended)
LAS
LAS-FAT (Fresno CA)
LAS-PSP (Palm Springs, CA)
LAX - 8 daily ends 1 daily starts net reduction 7 daily
LAX-PIT (1x daily)
LAX-PDX (2x daily ended)
LAX-SJC (2x daily)
LAX-BFL (Bakersfield, CA) (2x daily ended)
LAX-YLW (1x daily, moved to SFO)
4 gates in Terminal 6 leased to AA (Gates 60-63)
ADDED LAX-MEL (789)
ADDED LAX-MSP (CR7)
LAX-CLD (7x daily ending May 2015)
SFO
SFO-NRT (reduced x1 777/day, switched to HND)
SFO-LMT (Klamath Falls, OR)(ended)
SFO-MOD (Modesto, CA) (ended)
ADDED SFO-HND (1x daily 772, moved from NRT)
ADDED SFO-YLW (1x daily CR2, moved from LAX)
ADDED SFO-ATL (2x daily 738)
Expanded SFO-MSP (previously 1x daily mainline, winter 2x E75, next summer 1x E75 + 1x mainline)
Expanded SFO-STL (previously 1x daily mainline, soon 1xE75 + 1x mainline)
Expanded SFO-RDU 2x daily mainline over the summer
SEA
SEA-NRT (gone)
SEA-GEG (gone)
SEA-ANC (ended)
SEA-CLE (seasonal, gone)
PDX
PDX-SEA (ended)
PDX-EUG (ended)
PDX-RDM (ended)
PDX-CLE (seasonal, gone)
PDX-LMT (Klamath Falls, OR)(ended)
LAS
LAS-FAT (Fresno CA)
LAS-PSP (Palm Springs, CA)
[Consolidated] United Express (UX) route cuts [2014 & onward]
May 23, 2014, 7:32 am
#61
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
United doesn't want to compete. They are running away from the competition with their tails between their legs. Fire all of upper management and bring in someone who knows how to run an airline.
Part of the revenue and profit gain at DL/AA is due to UA management's incompetence.
Part of the revenue and profit gain at DL/AA is due to UA management's incompetence.
I noticed that DL up-gauged NRT-BKK back to a 744. It was an A330.
May 23, 2014, 7:42 am
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 2,002
next Weds LAX-PDX is merely 2x on CRJ200. I don't think people will really miss it. DL had no choice but to fly it because they need to feed their LAX hub. The hub that UA wants to feed is SFO, not LAX.
For what it's worth, neither AA nor WN flies LAX-PDX either.
For what it's worth, neither AA nor WN flies LAX-PDX either.
May 23, 2014, 7:46 am
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 2,002
It's a shame this airline is fading fast. They need help asap! LAX-PDX gone. Just amazing. I'm guessing LAX will go down to ORD, SFO, DEN, IAH, EWR and maybe we see JFK get cut also. I wouldn't be suprised. LAX will be like any other city. SEA is getting cut next, LAS is mostly rj, phx is rj. Basically everything is rj except for hub flying. Sad.
UA at LAX still serves more destinations than either AA or DL, and it's not even a core hub for UA.
May 23, 2014, 7:47 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
...
Sometimes, to maintain market leadership, it is necessary to offer some unprofitable product/option to support the macro operation [the whole is greater than the sum of its parts]. It is just like Xerox offering every single option for a copying machine, even if the folding option is not profitable. Since a major company might have 500 machines, but with only 10 that have the folding option for certain purposes in specific business lines. Now, Xerox looks at their package and realizes that only 5% of the orders have the folding option and they are not making money on that component, so they decide to cut that offering to improve their profit margin per unit sold. Now that company with 500 machines learns that they can no longer get the folding option, which means they need to find a company that offers such option and that opens the door for the competitor to not only get business for those 10 machines but all 500 machines. Naturally, companies prefer to stick with one supplier as it is easier to manage plus the indirect cost is much lower. Now, Xerox did not only lose 10 orders, but 500 orders.
UA is not thinking carefully IMO when it comes to cutting routes. There have been some massive downgauges at PIT and quite few frequency cuts and it keeps getting worse [trend began just under 2 years ago].
Sometimes, to maintain market leadership, it is necessary to offer some unprofitable product/option to support the macro operation [the whole is greater than the sum of its parts]. It is just like Xerox offering every single option for a copying machine, even if the folding option is not profitable. Since a major company might have 500 machines, but with only 10 that have the folding option for certain purposes in specific business lines. Now, Xerox looks at their package and realizes that only 5% of the orders have the folding option and they are not making money on that component, so they decide to cut that offering to improve their profit margin per unit sold. Now that company with 500 machines learns that they can no longer get the folding option, which means they need to find a company that offers such option and that opens the door for the competitor to not only get business for those 10 machines but all 500 machines. Naturally, companies prefer to stick with one supplier as it is easier to manage plus the indirect cost is much lower. Now, Xerox did not only lose 10 orders, but 500 orders.
UA is not thinking carefully IMO when it comes to cutting routes. There have been some massive downgauges at PIT and quite few frequency cuts and it keeps getting worse [trend began just under 2 years ago].
Amazing to me: Last year was UA 777/747 PLUS ANA 767.
Now they are to a single 787 ???
Too bad there is not a Joint Venture partner to run the PDX routes...
Sorry to hear about the reductions out of PDX. Just a couple of years ago, there was a great FT DO at the PDX station, which was a class act and a very good time.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/commu...22-2012-a.html
Yet another touchpoint that makes me miss the old United....
May 23, 2014, 7:58 am
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 2,002
And maybe you haven't noticed that BKK as a market isn't doing so hot lately for all airlines ?
May 23, 2014, 8:06 am
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,171
(you can still go PDX-SFO-JFK)
May 23, 2014, 8:23 am
#68
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
May 23, 2014, 8:25 am
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
That is right on, and something enthusiasts of selective route and station-cutting don't seem to get... the net effect on the robustness of the overall network. It's unstrategic to judge each city pair's discrete P-and-L profile. Cut BKK, and eventually JFK-SFO or LAX-ORD are emptier because you've completely driven off some customers to whom BKK was important. Cut PDX-LAX and UA loses some Australia-bound PDX customers to AC and YVR. And so it goes.
May 23, 2014, 8:29 am
#70
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
I hate seeing routes cut from the network, especially 'cool' ones like the legacy UA PNW operation, but these cuts are a different story. Of course, it might not neatly fit into the anti-UA(CO) narrative on FT, but the truth is the truth.
All of the SkyWest PNW E120 flying is conducted 'at-risk' by OO under a marketing relationship with United. United is not dictating schedules, capacity, or anything else about these services besides slapping a UA code and flight number on these trips. In 2008-2010, United terminated most of the non-SFO UAX contract flying in the PNW, which included the SEA turboprop operation and most of the same at PDX. OO stepped in and elected to continue to offer the service on an at-risk (non-contract) basis, which meant that OO assumed responsibility for the P&L of the service and UA collected only the revenue it contributed to the system once pax were online.
For UA, most of the service was extraneous because virtually all of the connections (aside from the shortest ones) made possible by the OO flying were duplicated via SFO with contracted UAX operations. However, OO stayed in the PDX markets predominantly because there was a small, high-RASM local market which provided incremental feed to UA and PDX/SEA and the E120 was the right airplane. SEA, on the other hand, was more competitive and likely constrained by OO's own contractual relationship with AS.
Now, SkyWest has disclosed the fact that it has a pilot shortage, much like many of the other SJPs. It is also progressively trying to retire the Brasilia fleet. At the same time, it has contractual obligations to AS, DL, UA and AA on the West Coast that it must meet with its existing fleet and pilot roster. The at-risk services are not SkyWest's core business, and if resources need to be devoted to contract ops at the expense of at-risk flying, then that's what will happen.
As for PDX-LAX, at least 15 of UA's SkyWest CR2 ops are pro-rate, so I wouldn't be shocked if that one is at-risk too and has been cut by OO. Still, it's a market UA probably should have a presence in and I am surprised to see it cut.
For those yearning for the days of UA dominance up and down the West Coast, that ship sailed circa 2000 (and had been slowly pulling out of port for about 15 years before that) and has nothing to do with the drawdown of a handful of OO at-risk turboprop routes ex-PDX.
All of the SkyWest PNW E120 flying is conducted 'at-risk' by OO under a marketing relationship with United. United is not dictating schedules, capacity, or anything else about these services besides slapping a UA code and flight number on these trips. In 2008-2010, United terminated most of the non-SFO UAX contract flying in the PNW, which included the SEA turboprop operation and most of the same at PDX. OO stepped in and elected to continue to offer the service on an at-risk (non-contract) basis, which meant that OO assumed responsibility for the P&L of the service and UA collected only the revenue it contributed to the system once pax were online.
For UA, most of the service was extraneous because virtually all of the connections (aside from the shortest ones) made possible by the OO flying were duplicated via SFO with contracted UAX operations. However, OO stayed in the PDX markets predominantly because there was a small, high-RASM local market which provided incremental feed to UA and PDX/SEA and the E120 was the right airplane. SEA, on the other hand, was more competitive and likely constrained by OO's own contractual relationship with AS.
Now, SkyWest has disclosed the fact that it has a pilot shortage, much like many of the other SJPs. It is also progressively trying to retire the Brasilia fleet. At the same time, it has contractual obligations to AS, DL, UA and AA on the West Coast that it must meet with its existing fleet and pilot roster. The at-risk services are not SkyWest's core business, and if resources need to be devoted to contract ops at the expense of at-risk flying, then that's what will happen.
As for PDX-LAX, at least 15 of UA's SkyWest CR2 ops are pro-rate, so I wouldn't be shocked if that one is at-risk too and has been cut by OO. Still, it's a market UA probably should have a presence in and I am surprised to see it cut.
For those yearning for the days of UA dominance up and down the West Coast, that ship sailed circa 2000 (and had been slowly pulling out of port for about 15 years before that) and has nothing to do with the drawdown of a handful of OO at-risk turboprop routes ex-PDX.
May 23, 2014, 8:35 am
#71
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,174
UAX to cut PDX-SEA/LAX/EUG/RDM [Sept 2014]
PDX got #Smiseked. Sad to see this.
Now if they can upguage SMF-SFO that would be nice. I dislike the E120 prop plane immensely.
Now if they can upguage SMF-SFO that would be nice. I dislike the E120 prop plane immensely.
May 23, 2014, 8:39 am
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,171
That is right on, and something enthusiasts of selective route and station-cutting don't seem to get... the net effect on the robustness of the overall network. It's unstrategic to judge each city pair's discrete P-and-L profile. Cut BKK, and eventually JFK-SFO or LAX-ORD are emptier because you've completely driven off some customers to whom BKK was important. Cut PDX-LAX and UA loses some Australia-bound PDX customers to AC and YVR. And so it goes.
Quite the narrative shift from just 2 years prior...
May 23, 2014, 8:42 am
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
I don't agree with your interpretation, but goes beyond the scope of this thread's topic..