Originally Posted by
BoeingBoy
No, you just said that UA was eroding US' traffic from PHL to UA's west coast hubs - you didn't imply it.
I said that if the conditions warranting throwing US out for flying from Boston to SFO existed, they also would exist to PHL. But anyway. . .
And then go on to justify that by talking about business travelers flying domesticly
How do I get from Frankfurt to Altoona without US in Star Alliance?
no effect on Star there - or those flying between the half dozen domestic cities where US has the larger presence - no effect on Star there
Except that people tend to choose a particular program and stay with it in order to rack up miles. If Star doesn't fly short-hops, but SkyTeam does -- and also offers plenty of long-hauls, why fly Star if your travel includes both?
Originally Posted by
BoeingBoy
those that don't use Star now
Actually, it does have an effect, since if Star becomes competitively disadvantaged, they lose hope of getting those additional non-Star folks.
Originally Posted by
BoeingBoy
those in small markets that UA doesn't serve - finally a somewhat small effect on Star.
Numerous small markets put together are larger than the UAL's diminishing share of its major east coast markets. Looking at the pulldowns in BOS and JFK, that's even more true today. US provides UAL with a vital service in Star.
That's even true for the recent China service to and from IAD. Without US's support (and feed out of DCA), and US DM members seeking to earn EQMs towards status on UAL flights, UAL would have a lot harder time selling seats.
Originally Posted by
BoeingBoy
Quite different than your statement that losing US would "shut the Star Alliance out of the East coast almost entirely."
It would indeed shut Star out of most of the east coast's airports entirely (since UAL doesn't serve them), and reduce its presence at most major east coast airports to a shadow of its present stature.