jsloan

It doesn't really matter how many employees it takes to run an airline with a minimal route structure, because UA isn't that airline -- or, at least it hasn't wanted to be in the past. Their stance has been that people fly UA for the network. The more flights you remove the network, the more you push people to your competition, And it truly is a network effect -- keep in mind what Kirby said when he was looking at the decision to pull out of JFK: they didn't realize how much business they'd lose on other routes because they dropped LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK.

If you look at Kirby's strategy pre-COVID, that's what they've been doing for the past three years: growing the network aggressively.

If they turn around and start trying to compete on something else, other than the network, they're in serious trouble both domestically and internationally. Domestically, AA has a newer fleet and worse service; DL has a comparably-aged fleet and better service. Internationally, among the full-service airlines, they hold up well next to AI and maybe LY and AC, but they're not offering a better product than SQ, CX, NH, EK, QR, LX... they're tied at best with QF, KL, AF, LH.. there are a ton I'm leaving out.

Their differentiator was MileagePlus, which they've constantly gutted for the past several years. They want high-margin travelers, but without the network, what are they offering them?

If UA is flying EWR-SFO 2x per day on October 1, there is no way they'll avoid Chapter 11, and Chapter 7 is a distinct possibility. There's a reason that they were running it 12x per day -- it's one of those routes that if they're not flying it, their passengers will find somebody who does -- and then take that airline the rest of their business too.