Originally Posted by
EWR764
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.
To your first point, while MIA and PHL are strong international hubs for AA, I think you are right that UA's hubsities (SFO, EWR, IAD, e.t.c) are superior in terms of international reach. But then again, international has, as you pointed out, been a focus for UA for quite some time so I naturally expect that to be the case.
Domestically, is a lot more debatable, and it could go either way or in between depending on where you are based. For example, a lot of my travel is to the east coast, so having nonstop service to WAS, NYC, PHL, CLT, MIA, and a large presence at BOS is huge. But, I could understand if I was based on the west coast, and the only major options were LAX and PHX on AA(although the AS partnership offsets that a bit). UA's presence (or lack thereof) in the southeast is their Achilles heal domestically.
Back to the main point about focus cities though, UA has a lot of work to do in order to build up their hubs domestically, which in turn affects their ability to create focus cities. For one, UA has a huge problem in how big their RJ fleet is, specifically the CR2s. It obviously isn't an easy fix for UA, but it is something that impacts their ability to compete in non-hub markets. You can't build focus cities in cities where you don't have any point-of-sale strength, and the reliance on CR2s and other 50 seaters is certainly a deterrent for many business travelers.
In addition, there is a lack of frequency from non-hubs to some of UA's major hubs, including DEN, IAD, and LAX. As I mentioned previously, UA's route network from LAX is lacking, but even IAD has some major holes including MEM, SLC, MKE, OMA, e.t.c. Now obviously those destinations are not make or break for UA, but it shows that significant work can be done before attention is drawn to focus cities. Additionally, DEN is ideally placed to replicate some of AA's success with DFW, much more so than IAH. UA recognizes this problem and is expanding their frequencies/banks to IAD and DEN, but until those are beefed up more, UA has ample room to grow their hub service.
Finally, there is no where for UA to put a focus city. While AA and DL are usually the
#1 or
#2 of the US3 in large to mid-sized non-hub markets, UA is generally
#2 or
#3 . Plus the most obvious locations are taken:
AUS (DL/WN focus city already)
BNA (DL/WN focus city already)
SJC (AS/WN focus city already)
SAN (AS/WN focus city)
STL (WN focus city)
MCI (WN focus city)
RDU (DL focus city)
CLE, sorry CLE folks, it isn't happening
PDX (AS hub)