Originally Posted by
fly18725
Interconnectedenss is a false construct to support an on-going negative narrative.
Serving LAX-SEA/PDX does not increase relevancy to customers in SFO. Nor does flying LAX-SJC mean anything to customers in Seattle. It can be legitimately argued that United is less relevant to customers in the Pacific Northwest than it was 10 years ago (a change initiated pre-merger). United also changed its relevancy in LAX, carrying about the same number of passengers to fewer destinations. What’s ignored is that the utility for SFO-based customers is significantly improved with more destinations, flights, and capacity.
Airlines cannot be be everything to everyone. United has chosen to focus on SFO, at the expense of some local traffic in cities were it historically played a larger role, like Seattle or Portland. Conversely, Delta is trying to be more relevant to customers in Seattle and LAX, at the expense of MEM, CVG, and a host of smaller cities (or look at Delta in Portland 20 years ago). Networks and competition changes. If United (or another airline) is no longer relevant to you, trying to hold on to the past will only result in frustration.
That is an assertion, not fact, and accepts a particular c2012 PMCO view of the aviation world in which focusing on fortress hubs and non-competitive routes and cutting capacity are the way to profitability as gospel. IMHO that was a mistake in 2012 and its a mistake today. I think UA bleeding traffic and dramatically under-performing from 2012-2017 show the plan has not worked, YMMV.
First, an example, company I work with has offices in LA and SF, does business up and down the coast and then periodic trips to NYC. They have 20 sales people who regularly travel mostly up and down the West Coast. At my suggestion they got a corporate deal, and it was DL that got the business. Why? Well DL covered the places they needed ex-SFO and ex-LAX, and UA lacked adequate connectivity to PDX and SEA where they do a lot of business. That combined with DL's better service and reliability tipped the deal to DL. Its not huge (likely $250K in sales) but a good example of the benefits of having a more integrated network.
Second, building out the network in a region has knock on impacts. For example, as DL has built out LAX and SEA it has made it possible for me to fly places via DL ex-SFO that would have been difficult in past. E.g. I have taken 8 trips to TUS in the last two years, easy to do via LAX connection, UA offers me no really good options. The result is that DL is now getting 70% of my $60k+ in spending, not the 25% they were getting when I started to fly them post 3/2/12.
P.s. and I might add that my opinion appears to also be Kirby's opinion (which is why he is trying to claw back some share ex-LAX) and is certainly the view behind the VX/AS merger, which attempts to build up regional strength on the West Coast.