Regarding "UA Lite"...

While I have no factual knowledge on any of the following, flying every week on Shuttle by United starting in December 1994, I heard many comments from United personnel and read numerous newpaper and magazine articles. Based on those comments and articles, it is my impression that Shuttle by United was considered “successful” during the early years (94-98/99). During this period, UA expanded Shuttle by United to include service from DEN to LAS, PHX and SLC. If it wasn’t working at some level, why would they have done this?

What the definition of “successful” meant in regards to Shuttle by United is an open issue. Was it intended to be a highly profitable, slightly profitable or simply a break-even venture designed to maintain a certain level of market share against WN? I don’t pretend to know the answers to those questions, but with the exception of the SAN-SMF, one of a couple of city pairs where they pulled out, Shuttle by United provided high frequency, price competitive service and I believe they generally seemed to have good loads (which doesn’t necessarily mean profitable).

As a weekly user of Shuttle by United, I heard only two relatively regular complaints: one was the consistently delayed flights, the vast majority of which could be traced back to SFO weather related issues [which, of course, is not Shuttle specific and impacts any and all UA service that passes through SFO]. The other complaint, less frequently heard, was that Shuttle by United flights only earned actual mileage, not the 500 mile minimum. For me, that limitation was easily offset by the absence of a change fee on non-refundable tickets and, for 1K’s, the complimentary upgrade to F.

I have intentionally used the phrase “Shuttle by United” above to differentiate it from the subsequent United Shuttle. United’s marketing of this product changed during 1999. What had been branded “Shuttle by United” (that’s how the white “Shuttle by United” planes were painted, that’s what the uniforms and paper napkins said, that’s what was printed on the boarding passes) became United Shuttle. The flight frequencies were reduced and, from other comments on these boards, the focus became feed for mainline rather than the original objective: high frequency, competitively priced, point-to-point, direct competition to Southwest. The United Shuttle product of 2000-2001 was not the same product that UA introduced in 1994 as Shuttle by United.

If there is an LCC in UA’s future, what it will look like remains to be seen. Whether such a venture can be profitable for UA also remains to be seen. How it would co-exist with full service transcon or international mainline likewise remains to be seen. If Shuttle by United was successful in its original form, then perhaps UA can successfully include an LCC in its future.

I don’t, however, understand the “it’s dead before it starts” type of comments that permeate this board whenever a Shuttle type product is discussed. Whether it’s a new point-to-point LCC or domestic service on a 757 configured 2x2 for the business class traveler, United must reevaluate everything and (to use an overworked phrase) think outside the box. The status quo is not an option for United – the status quo guarantees that United will perish.