unavaca

You have to be kidding me. As an SFO-based flier, UA is the superior choice, full stop. They are the only carrier at SFO who can fly you non-stop to SYD, KIX, BWI, CLE, GUM, IAH, MCO, MSY, PIT, RDU, RNO, and STL -- and that's just their mainline destinations; I didn't even list their superior UX network out of SFO. Let's also not forget their superior Hawaii service -- they are the only airline ex-SFO that can fly you to OGG, KOA, and LIH.

To say that their route network out of SFO is irrelevant is disingenuous, at best.

That's a huge if. In SFO and LAX, nobody comes close to having the network UA has.

entropy

[/QUOTE]

All depends on what kind of company you are and where you are going. Many companies have routes they frequent. MOST domestic traffic from ZSF goes to LAX, SEA, CHI,NY, wAS and BOS.

If you fly to that subset of cities you can be perfectly well-served out of SFO by VX. You are well-covered on AA (w/AS). Sure, they don't fly to 80 destinations from SFO, but so what. Most of the uniquely 'UA' destinations are served by RJ's. What does status matter there?

SFO777

So what? I lived in San Francisco for 10 years, fly close to 200K BIS miles annually and rarely flew UA. There are lots of options out there, most providing a better experience than UA. Full stop.

FlyWorld

1. SYD = conceded.

2. KIX = really? who needs KIX? Ever heard of NRT or HND? Big deal.

3. BWI, CLE, MSY, PIT, RDU, RNO, STL = I've never flown there, irrelevant to me. Not exactly major destinations. In any case, the fact that I've never once flown to these places in more than 1.5 million miles of flying means that these parts of the "route network" are, in fact, irrelevant to me. I care about places I fly, not places I don't fly. And, that's why my post was about. I could make up a list of specific cities that make any airline look good. It only matters if these are cities I fly to.

4. GUM = I can't find a UA direct flight from SFO to GUM. Is it operating only on specific days or did you make this up? And, how important is GUM in the grand scheme of things for the typical US flyer?

5. MCO = VX has a direct flight there. And, they don't treat pax like enemy combatants. UA's direct flight returns at 6am or thereabouts, requiring a 3am wake up, or, late in the day. Both are pathetic choices for a business meeting. Either wake up at 3am or waste an extra day there. Great.

6. LIH = In my post, I gave 1 example of a route that UA flies direct, that I fly, and that there are no decent competitors on. And, that was LIH. So, why are you using that as an argument against what I said?

unavaca

We're talking purely about non-stops. By that argument, why would UA fly to
OGG, KOA, or LIH if you could connect on HA? You even said that nonstops to LIH mattered to you.

Cool story, bro.

I lied, made it up, and am wrong. I can't find it on the schedule.

VX is pulling out of the market effective July 16th; that route goes back to UA.
I like VX, but we're talking about route networks here -- VX doesn't hold a candle to UA on that front.

Not an argument against what you said; I'm just agreeing with you -- UA's nonstop to LIH is another example of UA's superior route network out of SFO.

Indeed there are. If you don't mind spreading your spend across many carriers, you can get to a whole lot of destinations, even ones that UA doesn't serve (such as SFO-MIA on AA). If you want the most non-stop destinations out of SFO on one carrier, UA is the clear choice. Ditto for most of their other hubs.

FlyWorld

1. KIX = Yes, UA flies direct. So what? If you want to go to Japan, you can fly direct on other carriers to NRT or HND. I have yet to go to Japan when it was important to be in KIX as my destination. The only time I've flown into KIX is to use R space.

2. VX doesn't hold a candle. True. But, look where they fly: NYC, PDX, SEA, LAX, SAN, ORD, DCA, BOS, FLL. These are all cities that I fly to. Whereas you gave me a list of UA domestic destinations that I've NEVER flown to, VX gives me a list of domestic destinations that I actually do fly to. Hence, the size of the network isn't what matters. What matters is if they fly where I need to fly. VX does so disproportionally.

3. UA has more destinations. Obviously. And, it's irrelevant to me because it's not worth suffering through the abuse just to get 1K status. That was a part of my argument which you conveniently left out so you could create an argument.

Will I fly UA when they are superior? yes.

Are UA routes superior very often? no.

Are UA routes superior sometimes? yes.

Do other airlines have superior or equivalent routes to the places I fly? almost always.

The network doesn't matter because most of the network is useless to me, and because for most destinations I have good alternatives.

SFO777

Sort of like SU at SVO or AI at BOM or DEL?

anc-ord772

The AA status match thread turned into an SFO shouting match. Must this thread as well? Just agree to disagree! One perspective is just that.

That being said, obviously the new UNITED thinks they can run a successful (ie profitable) airline on network, operations and middle of the road soft product, hard product and loyalty program. Time will tell if the market agrees.

BearDown

With all of the talk about route network, I'm curious about the signs UA has posted in the airports and jet bridges. The advertisement boasts 370 destinations. Does anyone know if that counts partner flights? I'm guess it does, but I did some googling and I couldn't find the answer. With that said, if it does count partners, does anyone know what the number will be when US leave *A? I know we'll be losing *A service to HHH. I imagine that there are many other small airports in the same situation.

I'd be curious to know the overall impact on options.

Is it 10 airports? 20? 50?

Beerman92

Completely agree.

FlyWorld

Agreed. Enough.

boolean64

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I am going to sit in coach anyways and not get treated well during irrops and so on and so on, why does it matter if I stay on one airline for all my travel. As an "unmanaged" traveler, there is one reason and one reason only to stay on one carrier...ff benefits. The new united has made an explicit choice to diminish my ff benefits.

I used to maximize for ff benefits. Even if it cost a but more. Now that the value of those benefits have diminished, I choose to optimize for non-stop, comfort, and price. Lots of choices abound when I maximize on these other criteria.

todorovic

Your argument relies on someone's desire to stay with a single airline. The only reason for this is the loyalty and if the loyalty program is sub par then there is really no reason not to spread the spend across many carriers. The argument made by others is that it will take more than network and ops to keep/bring new customers and I think you just agreed with others.

entropy

it certainly counts regional partners. I don't think it includes *A partners. regional partners account for probably a good 1/3 of their traffic. All of those regional airports, and most mexican airports are RJ only.

PVDProf

Indeed. The network was a compelling argument when the question was, What carrier can I fly so that I can get upgraded and treated well on most of my flying? And when I focused that business all on old UA, I managed to get enough status to continue to get upgrades; their network made it easy for someone who rarely goes the same place twice.

The new UA just offers a wider range of places I can go in coach, even as 1K. But I can do that on other airlines, too, and with UA's coach not being all that desirable, I'm giving much more weight to pricing, scheduling, and coach product, thus booking away from UA, especially on international travel (though often to *A credited to UA, because I do still manage lounge access and free bags).

UA serves a lot of places, which should make accumulating loyalty with them easy. But they also have to make it worthwhile.