Personally, i think that LAX-HKG should be a vital part of UA's overall strategy - and not only because I, personally, really really want it.

To my mind, if UA is going to return to being a viable concern, it needs to focus on a theme. I think that - by and large - they've found it. I agree with what I think Tilton's strategy, to be the dominant US carrier to Asia, to be a viable US carrier to Europe (especially LHR) and to play a couple large niche markets in the Southern Hemisphere (EZE, GRU, SYD), though I would add AKL and possibly JNB to that list, over time. At the same time, cede large parts of the US domestic market to the LCC's and keep what you really want - full service transcon (p.s. and more) lower cost RCC's to the hubs and cutting back on gross seat totals mercilessly

Because of its size, growth and potential for premium traffic, Asia is just the absolutely key market, and I like what they are doing so far. Maxing out NRT and getting rid of some of the more superfluos slots (e.g. ICN) makes a lot of sense. (though why they don't have an IAD-NRT flight really puzzles me). Increasing direct access to Asia (ICN, PEK, NGO, PVG, etc) from the key hubs (ORD and SFO) makes a lot of sense and endorses Boeing's strategy with the 787 (though the continued reliance on NRT could see UA also pony up for some 380s at some point in the future, since there will be no more slots there until those farmers sell the land for the second runway, which will be never).

I like the fact that at a number of key Asian hubs, UA has cooperation and codeshare agreement with local airlines- ANA at NRT, Asiana at ICN and Air China in PEK. That is smart.

HKG stands out because it is both a mini-hub and a point to point. I don't think UA has decided which way to treat it. I think that an alternative Asia hub to NRT would be highly beneficial to UA's overall Asia position and would set it out against EVERYBODY else. The continuing flights to SIN and SGN are a great start, but I strongly suspect that UA could add MNL and BKK - the former because every flight I've ever been on to there from HKG is packed to the gills, the latter, because every UA BKK-NRT flight I've ever been on is similarly challenged, space wise.

I'm also curious whether UA could find a way to hook up with Dragonair - which would give UA three distinct ways into china (via NRT, via US hubs and via HKG) as well as other parts of the region. That would certainly justify another LAX flight and would follow the strategy of linking up with ANA and OZ. Indeed, I find it odd that Dragonair is outside all of the major alliances, given their key positioning

The argument that "well, of course CX can do three flights a day LAX-HKG - it is their hub" cuts both ways - LAX is also a UA hub and my guess is that UA throughputs a pretty good percentage of CX's daily traffic there alone.

There is no doubt that some US airline will continue to be a major player in the Asia-North America market and because of inertia, it is almost certainly UA or NW. UA has a much better reputation, a better service offering and a far better strategy. Building up HKG as its second major port of call would be a really smart move. Starting with an LAX-HKG flight would be a good start to that aim

And I'd really like it. Did I mention that?