Originally Posted by
fly18725
Why is size relevant? How do you even measure "largest carrier"? If by passengers, United's been smaller than Delta and Southwest for years. If you suggest ASMs are relevant for comparing size, why wouldn't the impact of longer flights with more ASMs be considered when comparing unit revenue?
What you are suggesting - that more of UAL's (before now shrinking/now flat) ASMs are going to more long flights is clearly true. The domestic network has been cut far more than the headline ASM numbers suggest. Why is that relevant?
United is no longer as it was at the time of the merger the largest carrier with the best network. Major holes have opened up in the network, and its directly tied to total ASM and where they are (international vs. domestic) being put.
As HVFers and Corporate contracts reconsider who to fly with, these cuts (in 2014 UAL stagnating while DAL grows) matter. I was very very unhappy with the service I received from UA after Jeff took over. Had I gotten fewer small RJs (on mainline routes I fly often) and real planes when going to a hub (757s or wide body as before, not a A319/A320 with poor upgrade changes) from SFO, I might have put up with the crappy OT performance and sub-par service. Put another way, you will retain some traffic with crappy service,
if you have the best network. But if your network is a lot of RJs and small (with few FC seats) slimmed mainline seats, then its not surprising that HVFers will bail to competitors that are adding service and expanding their networks.