Connecting International traffic = all non-hubs.
DEN PL is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.
Geography (and intl flight volume) doesn�t work for it.
SFO/LAX (west), IAH (south), EWR/IAD (east), ORD (combo) are the PL gateways.

I actually flew LHR-DEN-SAN earlier this month, mainly because the 2.50pm departure out of LHR suited my travel plans. It was tough waiting in DEN with no shower facilities (well tough for the people sitting next to me on my next flight as I hustle through airports to get some cardio). The food in the UC was okay but no substitute for a PL loinge and with no meal service out of DEN to SAN not a great end to my journey. My next TATL flight is back through SFO so good for the lounge and my next flight from LHR I am tempting fate by flying through EWR 🤦‍♀️. I do find the support staff at DEN wonderful to deal with but try to use IAH rather than DEN for the hub when flying domestically.

United needs a PL in DEN now that there is no meal service for most flights out of DEN.

For what it's worth, I did meet one of the UA ops managers and a GS agent during a DEN cancellation issue on a connecting flight. Prior to COVID I was told that DEN-AMS was going to be launched with the 788. These plans were scrapped of course. My contact in AMS (I live in AMS) before they closed the international UA office at Schiphol confirmed this and also stated that UA would open a Denver Polaris lounge when they had 7 UA international Polaris destinations. The latest rumour, although not confirmed was that Denver would get AMS after all, as well as CDG. This would push the UA total flights to 7 and then would have the LH flights as well bringing it up to 9.

You are behind the times - my last flight to Houston(IAH) was out of A. United has 14 gates on A and my flight to London about 10 days ago was also out of A. UA 27 seems to go out of A27 - at least my last two trips The fights to smaller cities are often out of the high B gates which have been recently renovated.

I would think UA is fine with the idea of arriving passengers not accessing a Polaris lounge from a cost perspective!

If they can have all their long hauls operating out of A that would be ideal for them as well as passengers. No need to move planes around between A and B.

It looks like DEN is starting the approach the number of long haul flights LAX had when their Polaris lounge got the green light. Anyone remember how many that was? And since then UA has added a few more LAX long hauls.

My point was more on departures - if most international travel originating out of DEN is DEN-other UA hub-international destination, then people accessing it as their starting point would also have logistical issues doing so. Namely, it goes to the point that any DEN PL as of now would be highly underutilized and probably not worth the upfront capex + the ongoing cost of servicing the lounge.

As I suggested a year ago, turning the A UC into a PL after the second B UC is complete and open does make some sense. Might be a bit large, but they could close off part if not needed. This would work if United moved all Polaris departures to A instead of the here today, there tomorrow approach they have now.

This idea was not well received a year ago….but I’m still not convinced the A gates really need a UC when two clubs are finally open in B. A simple grab and go or some such might really be enough for A.

DEN

As a lifetime United Club (UC) member, I can assure you that closing the UC in DEN Terminal A would be very poorly received indeed.

As I mentioned upthread, I don't think DEN-(LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,IAD,EWR)-INTL, or the reverse, traffic is what UA wants utilizing a PL for a variety of reasons. Thus if most DEN-INTL traffic winds up on A -- which, given the structure of FIS at DEN appears to be essentially mandatory for arriving passengers and wouldn't take major gymnastics to accomplish for departing passengers putting it a PL on A makes sense. It also comes with the bonus subtle deterrent factor for those doing the DEN-connect-INTL routing off of B.

But to your CapEx/OpEx point, absent a major competitive threat, the likes of which I'm having a hard time imagining a plausible scenario [F9 adding lie-flat seats and offering NS service from DEN to Europe's capitals with their own "Ursa Lounge" product? BA setting up a hublet and offering more destinations outside of the UK?] unless and until UA has more premium cabin -- preferably consistently paid premium cabin -- lift nonstop out of DEN I think a PL in DEN is a ways off. One could argue, for example, that LAX's only major justification for a PL is to differentiate UA from competing intl carriers like QF, and if UA didn't have route overlap a PL would still be a long way off.

The pictures up-thread also tell a bit of a story -- if a PL were in any way eminent DEN would have just thrown up construction walls and left the space shelled. The presence of carpet, etc. suggests that this is not an eminent project, on the other hand the fact that there are no concessions, etc. generating revenue suggests a +/- 5 year plan and almost certainly less than a +/- 10 year plan IMO -- otherwise another tenant could build something out cheaply and justify the amortization of the capex knowing they'd be gone when their lease was up.

A Polaris Lounge is always, or should be, eminent. You provide good analysis why this one is not imminent.

UA has major facilities capex in DEN this year not only for the massive B West United Club that remains under construction, but also for gate area renovations and other projects. Once all that is in the rearview, a PL becomes more realistic.

Re: AMS pre-COVID, I understand UA was planning on a 2nd daily EWR flight and a possible DEN seasonal 787 flight. But, the ongoing battle over Schiphol capacity means UA isn't likely to be adding there any time soon. My darkhorse pick for a new DEN TATL is a seasonal FCO when/if the ITA/LHG transaction goes forward. If not FCO, then perhaps CDG.

UA isn't yet moved in to all of the ~25 A gates it will eventually have. Once 100% operational, the A Club will no doubt be much busier. I enjoy the solitude for now!

I'm pretty sure Edelweiss flights don't get Polaris lounge access. The IST flight will be 3 days/week, with an upgrade to 4 days/week later. The MUC/FRA flight frequencies have changed seasonally in the past (going to one flight a day for lower season).

My guess is that the mainline A gates will eventually be for flights with the most outbound int'l connection pax.

Why would they put the lounge in A, other than it has the room? I have to guess as profitable as that airport is for UA currently, and with the total passengers there, that they will be adding several more international flights going forward. I keep hearing rumors about CDG, and a flight to Santiago, Chile, as apparently there are a large number of travelers who go DEN to SCL, which I would love for some summertime skiing. But if they are really worried about it being used, why not include the Hawaii trips in Polaris, which would make this lounge truly valuable when flying though Denver.

Given minimal competition for international flights our of DEN, I don't see United being too motivated to provide a Polaris lounge in DEN.

I live in Colorado and rarely fly to Europe or Asia direct from DEN because United's pricing on such flights is horrible - especially business fares - again minimal competition.