Originally Posted by
greg99
Based on that, wouldn't the more logical conclusion be SFO-BKK?
Based on current conditions and the fact that they previously cancelled the connection, that would seem to put SFO-BKK in the "long/thin" bucket that the 787 is designed for.
I have a feeling that when UA decides to tackle nonstop service to BKK, it will be from LAX, not SFO. LAX has more O/D traffic that such a long flight will require, especially since service to BKK is far more dependent on lower rev leisure travelers. SFO-SIN connects two major financial/business centers and therefore has a much higher propensity for business travelers. LAX still serves as a mini-hub for UA of sorts...and puts pressure on AA there. LAX is a much more competitive airport than SFO...but since no one has LAX-BKK since TG departed that market, it would be a prudent monopolistic route for UA.
I do think UA will consider service to BKK...but only after another year or two. That being said, I didn't expect the major explosion of new longhaul routes that UA has opened in this past year from SFO...so who knows?
Originally Posted by
PsiFighter37
They aren't adding any new routes to LAX either - seems like they are really emphasizing SFO as their Left Coast TPAC gateway. The only TPAC routes out of LAX currently are to NRT, SYD, and MEL right?
That's true--UA clearly is working to make SFO the preeminent Pacific gateway from the USA. But a future BKK nonstop would be better as LAX-BKK since the O/D traffic would be far higher than SFO-BKK...and LAX still gets plenty of feed from every other major hub in the USA.
SFO-SIN connects 2 very large financial/business centers. BKK doesn't support the business traffic that SIN does, especially from the USA.