Originally Posted by
jasondc
Yes, and I acknowledged the auto business. Did you not read what I wrote?
Regardless, while smaller, Delta owns Detroit, and there are some other niche players there that benefit from a highly specialized niche market place. Smaller market, higher percentage of control by one carrier, so prices are higher. While Chicago is a vastly larger market in terms of population (x2, as you point out in your census data), there are also more competitors. You have another hubbing carrier at ORD, and you have Southwest. Plus healthy presence from all other domestic and a growing number of international carriers. The market is more fragmented in Chicago, leading to less ability to control pricing. Not rocket science. UA has been on the upswing recently in terms of operations and in terms of service (all my flights since at last August of last year have been on time or early, food I've had in first class has been good, service has ranged from acceptable to shining. No different from experiences on DL or AA). It'll be interesting to see whether the new guard at UA can sustain this momentum and continue to do well.
That said, UA does compete in markets with a lot of competition, so average fares will be lower just because of the number of players in the market. That's just the way it is.
Of course I read it, I was simply agreeing and adding detail, I was not contradicting you or challenging you (except for the census data, which you'd overestimated for Detroit and continue to do so, Chicago is more than x2 of Detroit in population, I don't have stats on purchasing power but I suspect Chicago is x4 or x5 that of Detroit) so not sure why the snipe.
Yes, the market is more fragmented in Chicago, people aren't captive, so gosh, guess that means you need to try harder to compete? At least that's was I know about competition. So, being at best "no different" than AA and DL (and that would be a very recent development) is hardly competing. At worst, I don't agree, UA's hard product isn't as comfortable, entertaining or clean. I've found overall crews on DL to be far more consistent than on either AA or UA. On UA, I find a consistently dejected attitude, and crews that are indifferent mostly, with occasional exceptional and occasional horrible service. On AA, crews are most often competent, and exceptional more frequently than on UA, with the occasional lazy/indifferent crew.
The point many were trying to make is that somehow UA is at a disadvantage due to the markets they are in, and their hub locations. Myself and several here just can't see that argument holding water. The primary fact of any business is if you don't have competition, you're in a limited market and are going to have to retain share, and grow the market as much as you can (what DL and NW have done with ATL, DTW and MSP). If you have competition, good news you're in a large market with more customers available. The strategy is a bit different, you'll have to do better than the others, retain customers, and find ways to attract new customers both by grabbing new customers and in con-questing competitors customers. UA is not retaining, con-questing at all. It's strategy has been solely to depend on being the right choice on a flight-by-flight basis, hoping that with circulation effect they will always find enough people to fill the planes. IE, the theory being customers will choose the best fit based on a number of criteria and fly what ever airline is best position for that trip, and depend on the overall mass of the market to frequently enough be the best choice. In other words, loyalty is irrelevant. I don't think that strategy has worked, and it's showing up now as a hangover in the financials.