entropy

I'd love more SNA action.... and the killer for me would be SNA-YYZ on AC

bocastephen

Continental had a decent amount of service at ONT - now that the airport has thrown off the oppressive yoke of LAWA and can go out on its own, there is hope airlines will step up their service offerings, and create revenue for the airport to grow its facilities. CI is starting service from ONT this year, putting Asia within easier reach of the IE.

Given such a mass migration of Southern California residents away from the primary catchment of LAX, and into areas far closer to ONT, there is a great opportunity to tap this market with some O/D routes and global connections ex-SFO - frankly it can take the same amount of time for someone in the IE to drive to ONT and FLY to SFO vs driving from the IE in the morning all the way to LAX, parking (or returning a rental), transferring to T6-8 and then flying out from there.

schley

Absolutely the time it takes to get to LAX is such a dread and I simply think that they could market this well for time savings alone. It is similar to how Midway exploded with traffic and grew taking share away from ORD in Chicago as Southwest took over and marketed themselves as an easy airport to get to / from compared to ORD. They were right BTW.

Ontario is a sleeping giant IMO and if UA would seriously look at it as an option. Granted it defeats the new paradigm of spoke and hub operations as LAX is the hub and needs feeder routes, but again so cal is a unique market and throwing some A319's on some routes to hubs with a first class cabin should be profitable. Don't forget about parking fees are about half of what LAX as well.

FWAAA

Adam Levine-Weinberg makes the least informed Flyertalkers look extremely knowledgeable by comparison. He really has no idea what he's writing about.

supergabe

LAX needs more nonstop flights to Europe, an LAX/FRA would be great. LAX/LHR as the only option doesn't cut it.

zeer0

*China Airlines not Air China. The latter would've actually helped UA expand ONT by providing *A connection opportunities.

lhrsfo

It does have LAX-FRA on LH, and it's supposed to be metal neutral (except for lifetime miles).

ryman554

And PQD.

And GS qualifying miles...

And LH Y seats (but PE and LH C class)

For those big spenders that care, and I don't know how many there are, it is not metal neutral.

anc-ord772

The beautiful thing about LA, and LAX is that the traveler has options. If UA doesn't want to compete options are plenty (and will only continue to grow in the region), and people will continue to purchase based on price and convenience. Airlines changed the loyalty paradigm anyway so money upfront trumps loyalty and incremental business. At least with DL they have a fairly consistent onboard product/customer service and the perception of a reliable airline giving them an edge to market. What does UA have right now?

We've seen so many strategies over the last 5 years to try and squeeze revenue and they just don't work. Nobody wants to fly an RJ from LAX to PDX via SFO. No one is going to stay loyal to UA if they need to fly to BOS, PHL, ATL, etc., and those who would throw incremental business to UA for loyalty reason prefer to fly UA over LH to FRA, but can't. UA really thought it was a great idea to end ps to JFK for west coast NYC OD traffic? C'mon. Let's not even talk about the impact B6, WN, (and to a lesser but growing extent) AS have out here with their customer friendly policies.

At this point I'm carrier agnostic, so build LAX, dehub LAX, whatever. Get your customer service right first I would say. I don't bother connecting anymore unless a) I have to because it's a redemption, or b) to snag a flatbed aircraft. This laissez faire attitude should worry the airlines because it doesn't drive incremental business, but they don't seem to care...

Aussienarelle

+1

International flights - I can choose a number of international flights out of LAX and the UA connection to SAN is so hit and miss with delayed flights and the flight schedule such that it is often less expensive to get a car home (and miss the last part of the return flight). I choose based on cost and benefit out of LAX.

Domestic flights - nothing beats South West for quick trips to Vegas (from SAN) although I will take UA every so often but only if the price is right. UA taught me well.

Starting next year I am so looking forward to Lufthansa flying non-stop SAN-FRA, and then I can connect elsewhere to Europe. Adding to the SAN non-stop international flight network.

UA should think about some flights to Hawaii out of SAN...I am starting to consider Hawaiian Airlines going forward

gradsflyer

You need to keep in mind though that ending PS and possibly dehubing LAX were all Smisek era decisions and that team is more or less non-existent now. Nobody but Smisek's crony bean counters actually believed leaving JFK was a good idea and Kirby has openly (well almost openly) admitted that abandoning JFK was a mistake, and his strategy is to do the opposite with LAX.

anc-ord772

Using the ps example, the problem for UA is that from LA I can fly AA/DL/B6/VX to JFK. That’s the whole point, with options comes freedom.

I’ve been around for a while. I’m aware which management team was responsible. However it’s still UA and those were the decisions the company made at the time. Just like some of the silly distractions UA is engaging in now with Kirby. One management team to another, plenty of short term thinking has permeated the C suite.

NickP 1K

I can get to LAX in 41 min anytime before 5:10AM leaving my house. That's good for 8AM to 9AM flights and some 7:30AM departures. If I leave at 4:30AM I get into LAX in 38 min and can make early AM flights no issues - I generally park at the terminal. For returns I either ensure I land 9AM or later and the Southbound drive for me is never more than 50 mins - I avoid 2:45PM onwards till after 7:45PM where it's then 45 min or less. During the 4PM to 7PM window from LAX for me it can be 2 hours back home.

Know the routine well enough that I now realize how little time I spend connecting. Doing less through DFW or ORD (used to be UA through DEN or ORD) and just generally more flights is a good backup.

On longer trips I'll use Uber or Lyft to LAX - Normally I leave for these on Sunday AM and get to LAX quick. Then at least I get the benefit of the Carpool Lane (it's not great but a bit better) for the journey home

That SNA-YYZ AC flight did exist - flew it a few times mid week - it was likely 30% full each time. Writing on the wall on why AC killed that.

AlreadyThere

UA used to do this in the ancient past -- I remember flying them SAN-HNL. Must not have been enough traffic at the time to sustain it, and as you mentioned HA does it.

spin88

So very bad decisions were made c2012-2016, lots of high value traffic went elsewhere. You can see it in total revenue and PRASM. But what CURRENT UA management does not appear to get is that simply adding flights will not get elites/high value traffic to come back. I'm now primarily a DL flyer, and I find the service to be good, I get upgraded regularly on coastal routes (SFO-SEA, SFO-LAX), Delta has showers at the SkyClubs, and the SkyClubs are much nicer than the UCs. The soft product is better, and the hard product is as well (particularly in Y where UA has gone bottom of the barrel). I have gotten very good service from DL in IRROPs. Why would I ever consider UA again? United has to be BETTER for me to consider them again, and they are not.

So yes, Kirby may have IDed some of the past mistakes, but that is not enough to get valuable traffic to return.

So while I think UA's LAX pull down (and particularly killing LAX-JFK PS) was a major strategic mistake, absent United being better than OALs - so that it can begin to attract back some of the traffic it lost to AS/VX, DL, AA, B6 - I think adding a lot of feeder flights will just result in (a) some SFO cannibalization, and (b) lower yields.

+1