Originally Posted by
PsiFighter37
Giving up on LAX-SIN after 1 year is a pretty good indication of the level of tolerance they have for seeing how things pan out there. They were pretty quick to pull the plug on the second LAX-LHR frequency as well, IIRC.
Despite the narrative ("UA can't compete at LAX", that was my initial thought too), I have it on good authority it had as much to do with performance as anything else, and perhaps more so. UA just doesn't have the right airplane for LAX-SIN... the 789 took a significant payload hit to operate the route reliably. This competes with the opportunity cost of using the frame on a 2nd SFO frequency, which can operate with a better payload and offer more connection options (with 2 daily flights at different times). It's the same reason SQ can fly the standard A359 on SIN-SFO but is waiting for the 900ULR for LAX service. 300nm makes a difference, especially that far on the margin.
If it were all about poor returns to SIN, UA could have dropped the route entirely, not replaced it with another expensive ULH route, and redeployed the frame elsewhere in the system on a less risky sector.