With new ANA Sea-Nrt, is there risk that UA will go away?
Apr 29, 2012, 6:15 am
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA *G 1MM LT United Club & Global Entry
Posts: 2,756
Back in the old days NW and KLM would take turns operating EWR-AMS: usually NW metal for 6 months (summer) and then KLM metal for 6 months (winter.)
While UA and NH ‘compete’ they are also in an alliance which code sharing allows airlines to collect revenue without operating the flight, and the flyer to collect FF miles on the alliance partner of their choice.
If the passenger volumes justify 2x daily both UA and NH can both run their metal (at least seasonally) or otherwise they can take turns operating the route.
SunLover
While UA and NH ‘compete’ they are also in an alliance which code sharing allows airlines to collect revenue without operating the flight, and the flyer to collect FF miles on the alliance partner of their choice.
If the passenger volumes justify 2x daily both UA and NH can both run their metal (at least seasonally) or otherwise they can take turns operating the route.
SunLover
Apr 29, 2012, 6:37 am
#18
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K/MM, AA GLD
Posts: 1,709
No, actually, they don't compete on NRT-ORD/IAD/LAX. They have anti-trust immunity and a joint venture that means that they actually share costs and revenues on those routes.
Apr 29, 2012, 7:08 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Apr 29, 2012, 9:13 am
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,222
LAX, IAD, ORD and NYC are much larger market catchments - plenty of business to support multiple airlines. SEA is a much smaller catchment - the support for 3 airlines serving this route would be based on how much outbound connecting traffic runs from SEA through NRT. I don't have the data, so I can't answer this question.
Product-wise, *A customers would be better off with the ANA 777/787 or connecting in YVR on AC unless UA decides to move this route to an updated PMUA 777 or the PMCO 777 - they might not have a choice if their premium traffic moves to ANA.
Product-wise, *A customers would be better off with the ANA 777/787 or connecting in YVR on AC unless UA decides to move this route to an updated PMUA 777 or the PMCO 777 - they might not have a choice if their premium traffic moves to ANA.
Apr 29, 2012, 10:56 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
This comes from the UC lounge agent, so take it for what its worth:
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:04 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
This comes from the UC lounge agent, so take it for what its worth:
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:08 am
#23
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: DL Diamond, UA 1K MM, SPG Plat For Life, Marriott Plat, Nexus/GlobalEntry
Posts: 9,198
Hard to say what will happen... ANA could possibly pull out too after they test the waters. This would be a good route for UA to downsize capacity to a 787 themselves. A 767 could also make the journey but as of now UA doesn't use any 767's on TPACs.
Also, FYI, this route has the new seats on the 777 as well... not every day, but often.
Also, FYI, this route has the new seats on the 777 as well... not every day, but often.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:10 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
This comes from the UC lounge agent, so take it for what its worth:
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:23 am
#25
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: DL DM, HH diamond
Posts: 330
Apr 29, 2012, 11:36 am
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,222
This comes from the UC lounge agent, so take it for what its worth:
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
through 2013 UA will use both B and N gates (pmCO and pmUA gates) but in 2013 they will consolidate in A, with 8 gates and two lounges: one UC and other IFL.
Now if that's correct/remains the case I'd say the flight is safe as the only reason to have an IFL is SEA-NRT.
With only 1 int'l flight on UA metal, a IFL makes little sense. A *A Lounge would make more sense if they consolidated UA/NH/AC/LH on the A pier.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:36 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Apr 29, 2012, 12:16 pm
#29
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
The A gate consolidation is known...but what is unknown is their plan to assume both the current AA and DL lounges, or just take the DL lounge and make it into a standard-issue UC.
With only 1 int'l flight on UA metal, a IFL makes little sense. A *A Lounge would make more sense if they consolidated UA/NH/AC/LH on the A pier.
With only 1 int'l flight on UA metal, a IFL makes little sense. A *A Lounge would make more sense if they consolidated UA/NH/AC/LH on the A pier.
Apr 30, 2012, 6:14 pm
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Programs: United 1P, Alaska MVPG 75K, Hyatt Daimond
Posts: 428
Well, i realky hope thus flight stays. I think they are transitioning quickly over to the updated cabin. When i just flew, the cabin looked pretty new. I believe this was one of united's first tpac flights - not that it would make any difference.
I would flight this flight even more often, except for some reason, this flight is almost always more expensive then connecting through sfo. Maybe that is a good sign of demand
I would flight this flight even more often, except for some reason, this flight is almost always more expensive then connecting through sfo. Maybe that is a good sign of demand