Originally Posted by
spartacusmcfly
Please don't make things up. No one is suggesting UA lose money. EWR-CPT was already profitable and now that SA is liquidating, profitability gets even better...
If anyone at UA is talking about "hurting their competition," they are breaking the law. And if they are trying to push the competition into bankruptcy in order to make a route more profitable, they are breaking the law. And if you don't think that the DOJ cares, you may be right -- but all of these are international routes, and I promise you that there are other regulators who will care. If you want to discuss route expansions, that's fine. But they need to stand on their own. (Incidentally, neither of us have any idea whether or not EWR-CPT was profitable, or if it would be profitable again if it were to be restored).
Originally Posted by
spartacusmcfly
Sounds like an SQ marketing brochure... Unfortunately, the reality is SQ passenger traffic has been flat for nearly a decade as has profitability.
During / after the 2008-9 financial crisis, SQ was told to go make some money, so they cut a bunch of their less profitable routes and retired their less efficient planes. They've been building their traffic back, and it's basically rebounded to where it was, but they've managed to cut costs. That said, when push comes to shove, the government will support them.
Originally Posted by
spartacusmcfly
Singapore is the size and population of a NY borough, so there is no domestic market.
Did you honestly think I didn't know that?
Originally Posted by
spartacusmcfly
Singaporeans are smart and have no desire to backstop future losses.
The government owns SQ, and it is absolutely part of their plan for positioning Singapore as a global business leader. Their business model is completely different than UA's.
Originally Posted by
spartacusmcfly
Putting a little pressure on some of their 5th freedom routes like SFO-HKG should see them exit quickly. Anyway, there's no reason to debate this. UA has done exactly this by launching SFO-HKG
#2 . This is an evening flight that goes toe-to-toe with SQ's evening flight. So let's see if it works!
UA has already dropped that flight. And, if it would "put pressure" on SQ, that doesn't sound like a huge profit opportunity. Few people are selecting UA for their product. Even fewer are selecting UA for their service. So, they're presumably looking to compete on price. That... doesn't sound like a decision you'd make unless you were trying to do one of those illegal things mentioned above.
Demand to HKG was already in the toilet due to the civil unrest. Throw in a pandemic, and nobody's going to be looking to bring service back any time soon. The second SFO-HKG flight likely won't operate until 2021 at the earliest. As I said, I think they'd bring back ORD-HKG first.
Overall, you still seem to be approaching this from the same position you had before, when you wanted UA to buy AI -- that UA was a "strong company' (your words) that should be able to take advantage of an opportunity.
Every indication is that UA is
not a strong company, but rather an extremely weak company. They are mortgaging their assets and borrowing to make payroll. Yes, they need passenger traffic, absolutely -- but they are not going to be in any position to do some massive expansion. They're going to stick to rebuilding their own portfolio, not wondering what international competition is doing.