Originally Posted by
hoshattack
It's fine if UA doesn't want to serve LAX-SEA (or LAX-PDX) but I can't reconcile that with being the
#1 carrier in the west. I get that the economics aren't good and maybe that means UA is doing something smart for once. My point is just that UA really only seems to care about SFO and marginally LAX, NOT the west coast.
There is a lot of value in having a network that is not just a single point, but ties together interconnected cities. The west coast cities are tied together for a lot of industries, and being able to service SAN, SNA, LAX, SFO, PDX, SEA (plus to a lesser extent PHX) can drive a lot of traffic for companies or individuals who operate in all/some of these cities, not just one. It is comparable to the East Coast where historically DL and US had a "shuttle" and PMCO which had EWR. At this point on the west coast Delta and SWA have the shuttle, VX/AS is building one. United, not so much.
I think lacking the same degree of interconnectedness due to c2012 decisions has hurt UA at cities other than SFO, and I also think it has hurt UA at SFO in driving away some traffic that wants an airline that will serve multiple west coast cities.
At this point United has a very bad brand reputation and throwing extra capacity at it will simply drive down United's PRASM and load factor, which is what we are seeing the last few quarters. I think the ship has to some extent sailed, despite Kirby's efforts to regain some of what was lost.
p.s. and this is not unique to UA, AA has tossed away multiple opportunities to build out its west coast network and has instead retreated to LAX....