kevanyalowitz

None of which has played out...

HNLbasedFlyer

They actually said that? I never got that impression.

Everything I read talked about reducing capacity and reducing costs when the merger happened.

I thought the purpose of the merger was to make more money than the carriers being separate.

3Cforme

Here's the first sentence of the press release announcing the merger. Emphasis mine:

Continental (NYSE: CAL) and United (Nasdaq: UAUA) today announced a definitive merger agreement, creating the world's leading airline with superior service to customers, expanded access to an unparalleled global network serving 370 destinations around the world, enhanced long-term career prospects for employees, and a platform for improved profitability and sustainable long-term value for shareholders.

Spin88's contention that UA asserted it would be the biggest in the best hubs finds easy support.

ryman554

Nowhere in that statement indicates the new UA wanted to be (and remain) the largest network and the largest in the best hubs. "Unparalleled" can mean many things. The only thing quantifiable is the number 370. What is that number today?

Had you bolded "expanded access" and argued that said access is diminishing, due to higher reliance on partners (is that still the network?) and dismantling of its domestic service (nominally to reduce redundancy, but also to shore up those very same best hubs), then I can see the point.

Mergers are always about firing people and reducing costs by reducing overhead and eliminating redundancy. That's what synergy means to the market. Reasonable people can argue that UA went too far, but to claim that they planned from the start to just take the routes they have and add new destinations to them because they are somehow now more efficient....

My guess is that they intended to move redundant flights to new locations (planes have to fly somewhere) and get rid of inefficient planes, but the lack of cross-fleeting capabilities meant the logistics were neigh-impossible (remember, reliabiity dropped significantly, losing passengers, because of the maintenance/shorter block times) along with the IT SNAFU which *really* lost passengers and suddenly they found themselves in the position where they couldn't fill the routes the currently had. Instead of taking the long-term view to expand access to under-served areas, they took the short term view to reduce capacity even further, restricting said access to their under-served areas. And so you see what you have today.

EWR764

In a general sense, yes, but I don't think the goal (realistically) was to be the biggest. That notion went out the window as soon as it became clear that post-bankruptcy AA wasn't going to remain a standalone carrier. Whether AA's dance partner was CO or US, it would still be larger than UA+US/CO and DL+NW, unless major, unprecedented divestitures were mandated (and we know that wasn't going to happen).

I don't think UAL is throwing in the towel on LAX-LHR at all, just as seasonal day-of-week frequency adjustments on routes like ORD-HKG and EWR-PVG do not portend the termination of those routes, either. But it plays into a favored narrative vis-a-vis UA @ LAX, and I understand that. Confirmation bias, I guess.

The thing is, the areas in which AA and DL are investing in building out their respective networks are sectors in which UA is comparatively well-positioned, e.g. a mainland transpacific gateway (DL and AA) and a comprehensive Asia network in the first instance (AA).

OT, but it's worth noting that the mainline fleet is growing by about 21 frames next year, and the fleet composition is slowly becoming more widebody-heavy. A lot of that capacity will be offset by regional retirements, so systemwide capacity won't be up all that much, but I suspect mainline ASMs will increase by at least 5%, especially on the domestic side. There is investment in growing the mainline unit of the business, and I applaud that. I think those changes will begin to drive improved returns as compared to AA and DL more so than the speculative attribution of UA's undperformance, in part, to the fuzzy science of network tweaks.

entropy

Well, to be fair, yes it does say unparalleled, but I think most people would take that to mean more coverage than anyone else. And that may be the only statement that is sort of true, they certainly have not delivered on superior service to customers, nor long-term career prospects to the employees they continue to laid off/furlough. Profitability is not improved relative to the combination, as they are lagging both the "merger synergies" that never materialized and their peers, who are outperforming them.

LAX is going to be toast in a few years, every hub has to earn their hub status every day under this new management philosophy. The TPAC flights that are unique to LAX will go to SFO, the intra-california flights they run with Skywest will just disappear; WN can take care of LAX-SAN, and they'll have their shuttle service to SFO where they can connect LA to the world.

kevanyalowitz

Hasn't UA failed to realize any 'synergies' thus far when you factor in the massively underestimated integration costs?

qukslvr619

It's ever more evident that UA is slowly cherry-picking LAX. While I chalked up the loss of EM2 markets to the lack of suitable 30 seat replacement, I have to also believe that we are seeing a slow demise of a lot of intra-CA flying to smaller airports. Eagle cut a lot when they got rid of the SF3s, UA is doing the same. It stinks, but there seems to be a strong message from the airlines that they don't want to waste the resources flying to airports that are within a 1-2 hour driving distance from a larger city. CLD was a nice alternative and flights were mostly full and didn't seem to be underpricing SAN....but my theory was that the people who were flying out of CLD eventually just chose to fly the nonstops out of SAN to Asia/Europe rather than connect over LAX.

To that note, as much as I like throwing in the extra connection, I think SANLAX will continue to shrink but doubtful you would see the likes of WN come in. The local market is small and most people just drive....sure 15-20 years ago bi-hourly service was the norm, but SAN didn't have the nonstops it has today. Of course I could be completely wrong about this, but it seems to make the most sense as the market only existed for connections.

zrs70

I have a feeling this post may be a bit alarmist - jumping the gun. I am looking at flights throughout the spring/ summer. With the exception of April 8 (which the OP saw) I can't find a date in which UA doesn't have LAX-LHR-LAX nonstops. Perhaps I am not being thorough in my search?

Is there an event April 8 in which UA needs the plane for another purpose?

EWR764

I think this is mostly true, as many of the SkyWest intra-CA flights are pro-rate flying (especially the EM2 service) that operates under the UA banner but is not contracted by UA. In other words, UA will take the incremental feed, but if push comes to shove and SkyWest can't make the route work on an at-risk basis, it's gone.

It seems to me that UA is trying to orient LAX to a primarily O&D operation instead of a connecting complex like SFO.

raehl311

That was kind of his point - UA charges legacy airfares but nickel and dimes like a discount carrier.

So if you're OK with a discount experience, you might as well pay discount pricing (not UA), and if you don't want a discount experience, you might as well get one of the carriers with a better experience for the same price (not UA).

Aka not sure how UA is trying to position themselves.

dawg1k

Here's some additional dates:
March 30, 31
April 3, 4, 5, 6

The bottom line is I need to go around then. I stopped looking after a while and called the 1K desk. Using the +/- 3 days option made it easier to see the block.

That said, going further out, it does seem to go back to normal. But I don't have the time nor need to continue looking at this point.

Reading this thread continues to push me towards another carrier and having to spend more. But if I spend more, it won't be on UA (esp. for Premium TATL service).

1KPath

I completely agree!...for the past four + years I have been using NZ LAX-LHR 15-18 times per year and it has been terrific...hard product, soft product and everything in between. On the rare occasion I fly UA on this route, usually when I can use a GPU (I am round filing 4 of them this year), I can't believe the difference and wonder why I bother with UA at all any more on this route (after flying with them to LHR for 20+ years). It is sad to see the degradation of UA's once proud int'l service.

Agree...Sad, Sad, Sad!

fly18725

International travel slows down quite a bit for Easter so fewer people will be inconvenienced.

FWAAA

Over at HPdbaAA, new management is doing some of the same; not on LAX-LHR, but on other routes traditionally thought of as business routes, so it's not just UA. I think there are examples over at DL of similar frequency cuts.

I've always thought better to run routes like this daily to be there for business travelers who don't travel on fixed dates. While the consultants often travel domestically en masse on Sunday afternoon/Monday morning and back on Thursday, I would think that business travelers in a market like LAX-LHR travel all seven days a week. What to do about days with lower demand? You can cut fares to try to fill things up on those slower days, but the people paid the big bucks are increasingly scheduling day-of-the-week frequency reductions instead.