N1120A

LOL - I thought the same thing.

2 in a row. I love it.

There is a lot more O&D between TUL and ELP to LAX than to SFO. That's more what these flights are geared toward. Look how long MSY went before getting its SFO flight back, while LAX was brought back rather soon after Katrina.

nissan720

Well since I live here in OKC I am glad to see another option on getting to the west. While spending that much time in a RJ is not fun at least it will be in economy plus.

Pyridoxine

The OKC-SFO addition is a welcomed plus to OK. I will be even more thrilled if they add a TUL-SFO. That would be faaaaantastic!

peersteve

From the OKC perspective, the timings for the OKC-SFO and SFO-OKC flights are excellent:
Get to SFO by 9am (or later if fog....but still time for a late breakfast somewhere nice in the city before business meetings)
Leave SFO 4pm, non-stop.....which matches the traditional last connection SFO-DEN-OKC which also leaves at 4pm......so you don't have to leave the west coast early to have advantages of the non-stop.....unlike UA's new LAX timings!

Checking the UA schedule, when the new OKC-SFO flight starts, there's a cancellation of 1 of the current 2 OKC-LAX/LAX-OKC non-stops. The new schedule has the same OKC-LAX flt (lv 11am ar Noon).....but the only return is now LAX-OKC lv 2pm- ar 7pm.

Is it any surprise this new UA OKC-LAX schedule is opposite to the AA non-stops OKC-LAX? AA has OKC-LAX in the afternoon and LAX-OKC leaving 9am.
-----------------
As a side note, the OKC newspaper ran a full-front-page-of-biz-section article about how "New SF flight may be sign local economy is taking off" on Sunday, May 15. In the long interview with the OKC airport director, there was no mention of UA dropping one of the OKC-LAX flights.....so the new OKC-SFO flight actually means no net increase in flights or possible passengers. The reporter called Southwest, for some reason, for comment, and reading between the lines of the quotes.....Southwest seemd to make the point that they fly planes which hold 130+ passengers, but since the reporter didn't realize that UA would be flying a 70-seater, the article gets all confused! Oh, well.....

notabob

Here you have a thin domestic route to a secondary city, that is impossible to make money on using a mainline aircraft. The airline gives the community a new non-stop option to the West coast in the aircraft that would still allow it to make money. Which would you rather have? Non-stop service in a CRJ700, with F and E+, or no service at all?

The airline is betting that about 60 people per day will opt for a non-stop, and be willing to pay premium for the convenience and time savings vs. at least twice that many that it would need to find with a mainline jet. Basic common sense says that it'll be a lot easier to fill 60 seats at higher prices than 120 or more.

Sure am glad the airline is making financially sound decisions to ensure its own viability over the coming years (and therefore continue to provide me with numerous and flexible flight options for business and personal travel), as opposed to pleasing a few FlyerTalk forum members who only seem to care about having a half empty 747 all to themselves between HKG and SIN/SGN for the couple of times a year that they fly that route.

garykung

Are you sure?

AFAIK, there is only one UX service per day per direction...

peersteve

Oh yes..... two flights daily in each direction currently
(for example, June 7)
OKC-LAX
UA 6443 lv 11:17am
UA 6893 lv 6:48pm
--------------------
LAX-OKC
UA 6442 lv 12:08pm
UA 6892 lv 7:16pm
------------------------------------------

(after Sept 1 or so......just 1 flight each way)

whlinder

I don't think UA is looking at 60 people opting for a nonstop... this is about strengthening the SFO hub. OKC will provide incremental feed to TransPac flights (particularly ICN and KIX I assume) and SFO is the only hub (well, other than CLE) that is not served nonstop from OKC. It basically puts the entire new UA network within 1 stop of OKC. Much easier to be the preferred business carrier in town when that is the case.

notabob

I couldn't agree more. But my response had more to do with the comments berating the decision to serve the route with a CRJ700 (with its 66 seat capacity) vs. a mainline jet. I'm sure if UACO felt there was sufficient demand for more - they'd put something larger on the route. And in time, perhaps they will. But let's not fool ourselves that the airline opened the route solely to maximize its market share in OKC. Those days are long gone. They would not start the route if they didn't feel they could make money with it. And if over time they don't, I can guarantee the route will be gone faster than you can say 'low yields'.

peersteve

From the OKC perspective, United changing one of the 2 OKC-LAX flights to OKC-SFO (using same CRJ-700) makes sense now that AA has entered the OKC-LAX non-stop market (also with CRJ-700 with F). The schedule in August when the UA OKC-SFO flight starts will have UA and AA nicely non-competitive in the OKC-LAX market -- UA takes the morning OKC-LAX and AA does the afternoon OKC-LAX, and reverse on the LAX-OKC flights.

As wisely mentioned above, the OKC-SFO provides unique TransPac connections, as well as some west coast destinations. (Although it may be a toss-up whether to worry about fog delays at SFO vs. snow at DEN for connections.)

These "long, thin" routes as non-stops from OKC are also important as ways to fight Southwest....... Southwest may have the fare-setting power with connection flights, but AA and UA have found they can get at least a $100 more for the OKC-LAX non-stop, especially with the hope of an upgrade. From OKC, the best example is our crown jewel CO/UA OKC-EWR non-stop each morning (land EWR at 11:30am......departs EWR at 7pm) -- the fare is often $400+ more than connection flights on SW to LGA, or now EWR.