char777

Also, LAX-CDG/AMS on DL metal are only 3-4x weekly. That feels rather light compared to the 2-3x daily that KL and AF each have to AMS/CDG, most of which are on 747s or A380s.

cerealmarketer

Not sure if this got posted but was from a month ago...for those who like to get a look under the hood of the business on a local level...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-plans-more-feeder-flights-at-los-angeles-441829/

• Says UA wants T9
• Will add more smaller city West Coast destinations like Medford
• Says UA has double digit margins at LAX vs loss or slight positive at AA and DL so plans to reinvest
• Talks about need for connections at the hubs

I was under the impression UA was breakeven at LAX but guess the cuts did yield margin. I'm guessing the thought is more reliable, shorter connections to transpacific for some of the routes vs SFO that are more southern like SIN and MEL/SYD.

jsloan

LAX is further from SIN, MEL, and SYD than SFO is. It's so much further east that the north-south savings are overwhelmed.

More reliable, OTOH, is a definite possibility given the weather differences.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

The LAX O/D market is just too important to marginalize by shrinking. I do question using slot/gate space for a something like Medford. Makes me think T8’s RJ gates are limiting mainline expansion, and instead are stuck w/ expanding to a market like Medford. Southwest’s future expansion to Hawai‘i makes UA’s planned LAX-Hawai‘i expansion potentially a loser. I’d be directing mainline expansion towards business markets, not leisure.

Edit - Looks like only LAX-MFR non-stop is AA right now. Maybe UA is thinking of dropping one of 3 SFO-MFR flights to add one LAX-MFR? That would almost make sense.

PsiFighter37

I'll believe it when I see it. LAX-SIN is the only notable addition I can think of right off. And they should be adding routes like LAX-SJC/PDX before looking at something like Medford...

cerealmarketer

I get the sense the Kirby playbook is 'bring in people from airports that will have to connect anyway with a shorter connection' - as opposed to going after heavier O&D markets like a LAX-SJC/PDX. At least from what I read of his comments over time.

Hawaii doesn't seem to fit with that unless he sees some kind of connection play.

radiowell

This is (potentially) a good start:

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...-3x-daily.html

If they add LAX-PHL, then I will start to believe it.

sapguy

I want LAX-PHL non-stop again so badly !!!

I overheard a couple of UA execs (suit & tie types) mentioning the restart of LAX-PHL sometime in 2018 when I checked in at 1K counter in LAX on Thursday. Here is hoping that this will actually be happening.

PsiFighter37

Given that Kirby specifically highlighted that UA needed to do a better job of competing on routes into competitor hubs (I remember he specifically highlighted EWR-ATL as an example), that would be a good first step...but they also need to have more than 1-2x frequency. Perhaps they can use some of those used A319/320s they are picking up to support something like that.

smxflyer

This just popped up in my google news feed:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...a-bizarre.aspx

smxflyer

Makes dropping LAX-MSP a little bit of headscratcher. They are beefing up LAX-DFW to 3x daily as well though.

PsiFighter37

Sounds like someone who likes Hunter Keay's school of thought.

DA201

In my opinion, people who argue that UA needs to eliminate LAX can't see the big picture. There are a lot of loyal UA flies in LA who would easily switch to AA or DL. There would then not be enough people to fill all of the EWR-LAX flights, so they would cut the schedule, which would lead to NYC based fliers who primarily fly EWR-LAX switching as well. Also, loyal UA fliers who fly to small cities from LA (ex. LAX-ORD-MSN) will switch to AA or DL for the same one-stop route. Flights that were struggling to stay above water and are relying on connecting pax may now be cut.

Airlines need to continue to grow and get more passengers for the long run. I know Wall Street likes to see the short term results increase by cutting less profitable routes/hubs, but those passengers are needed to fill the planes on the profitable routes.

radiowell

Going even further, this rumor may make sense for the transcon growth as well:

United to buy more NEW 763/4? [Rumor]

They can configure the part of B763 fleet for the domestic p.s. and run them on the original p.s. (SFO/LAX-EWR) and free up B752 for the off-peaks and other transcons (SFO/LAX-IAD/BOS/???). I know, I'm dreaming

PsiFighter37

If they go down this route, I hope they go with the Polaris seats from the get-go. No more B/E Diamond seats, please. It would also mean that they would actually have arguably an industry-leading product flying TCON - all-aisle access, which isn't something that any other airline can boast of upfront.