Originally Posted by
MIDWESTERNFLYER
You are glossing over the crux of what I was saying, I never mentioned anything about which hubs were the most efficient or who had the better operation. I was simply refuting the previous claim that was stating that UA's hubs are in much bigger/better locations/cities than AA's which I don't think is necessarily true:
Secondly the point I was making about JFK was that UA not having a presence there certainly is a major hole for UA, which isn't a crazy claim to make considering there are dozens of articles where UA itself admits that:
https://skift.com/2017/04/21/united-...rong-decision/
I understand your broader point, but the examples you used (JFK, LGA, LAX, DCA) with respect to AA really aren't its center of gravity, and AA is especially weak in New York.
Apples-to-apples, you're correct in that AA and UA are much closer in terms of hub placement to local market, but I'd argue that United's hubsites are superior for international traffic and at least equivalent for domestic. United's weakness is that it missed out on the last decade of domestic expansion, for two reasons: (1) its predecessor entities had drawn back domestic in favor of international during the early 2000s, leaving a smaller starting footprint; and (2) post-merger, it aggressively reduced capacity in a way that primarily impacted the domestic network. Now, it's clear the structural advantage conferred by a massive, 700+/daily connecting hub, and United is well behind the curve in this respect... which brings me back to my central thesis: United shouldn't be diverting resources to focus cities or other pursuits until it has that kind of scale at one or more hubs.