EWR764

goodeats21

Thanks for confirming. I was confused as you mentioned 789 route and the SFO-PPT is with a 788.

Fingers still crossed for BKK.

Austin787

Guesses: LAX-FRA, LAX-ICN, or LAX-HKG.

Aussienarelle

I really wish it were easier to get to the continent of Africa with UA. I currently use AF/DL, but would prefer a UA flight. It is a booming market but unlike South America where I can fly UA and connect to elsewhere, UA seems to totally ignore this large and developing continent.

I do suspect this will not be the next long haul flight. :-(

goodeats21

Any idea on when the announcement will be made?

sinoflyer

With discounted Y fares between LAX and many points in Greater China, including HKG, currently going sub-$500, announcing LAX-HKG could conceivably be considered as irresponsible.

jmanirish

Crossing fingers for LAX-FRA. With LH downgauging from an A380 to 346, there is likely room for UA to fill. Although one could argue it didn’t change the seats LAX-DE (since the 380 got moved to LAX-MUC) there are a lot more onward options from FRA.

skidooman

From LAX, for sure it won't happen. If it happens anywhere it will be on the East Coast first.

The issue here is that the incursions that United did in Africa did not seem to pan out. Not long ago we had a IAH-Lagos flight. Obviously trying to tap the oil business. But it went up in smoke. I assume with the price of the barrel being as it is, United had problems making this flight successful. Add to the mix that once in Lagos there wasn't any partner to transfer on - I assume it did not help either.

There is also a problem of priorities for Africa. United has a limited number of long-range birds. Say it uses the plane to fly to a big city in China. My guess is that with everything going on in China it is easier to fill up the seats.

AlreadyThere

But on those China routes there is a lot of competition from Chinese carriers, especially in the rear cabins. On the other hand, one decent route to Africa, perhaps with appropriate partner connections, not too much competition, and not entirely dependent on one cyclical industry as was IAH-LOS, could see a front cabin that filled more regularly. (Although I guess LAX-ADD is already being served...)

Kacee

This is the key point. It makes no sense at all to fly to Africa from the west coast, you lose the possibility of east coast connecting pax . . . who's going to backtrack six hours? There's a reason SFO is the TPAC hub, not EWR.

Geographically, IAD would probably make best sense. IAH had LOS because of oil.

skidooman

Maybe. And then for sure, if you have less competition in theory you can have a better premium.

But then, consider that, sure, there is competition in China. But there is also demand. A lot of demand. In the form of a horde of tourists and an army of professionals, on both sides of the ocean. And, on the Chinese side, an increasing amount of $$$..

I am sure Africa has good touristic spots, and sure there is some folks with the means to travel. But for better or worse, not as good as in China. Not yet anyway.

As for flying into someone else's hub to get connections, sure. That's the idea. Unfortunately, as far as I know there isn't a viable potential partner on the west coast of Africa, say centered around Nigeria or Sénégal. At least, none that made it to an airline alliance. The only airlines that made it are located in north, east and south Africa. So, say you want to go to Tanzania to see Mt Kilimanjaro. OK, flying to ADD would make sense. Johannesburg? Much less so. Now, say you want to fly to Mali, Nigeria, etc? Unfortunately, you need to backtrack a bit. So, that limits the usefulness of these hubs. That increases the difficulty of maintaining flights there. It doesn't make it impossible, just makes it more difficult.

Sure, United could make deals with a slew of local companies. But then the danger is to the brand. See, if I go to United.com or a travel Website and I book a fare on United connecting to a partner, I have there a moral caution that United took a look at this airline and said "yes, they are up to par". Maybe not an excellent par, but par anyway. As I said, I don't know enough here, but how many of these smaller airlines could actually qualify?

As for LAX (which is after all the topic of this thread) getting service to ADD, I don't see this happening for reasons that Kaycee went into. Furthermore, Ethiopian, a Star Alliance member, is already servicing that route. Is there any shortcomings in the offering that would justify adding another link there or would it simply end up cannibalizing the route, end up with a (short-lived) price war and return to the monopoly state again? Would Ethiopian make it easier for UA to start service by creating code-sharing agreement to service the UA flight from LAX? I am pretty sure not.

EWR764

LAX-ADD (same with NBO/CPT/JNB) is too far for economical service with any airplane in the United fleet. ET service is via DUB. Service to West Africa is technically possible, but isn't happening on UAL.

The rumored new LAX route will not be to Africa.

KosherKimchee

Maybe am ill-informed, but what would be the point of LAX-FRA? Don't UA and LH revenue share thru their JV? Seems like the recent LH downgauge LAX/FRA would have been a joint decision, so adding back a 787 seems illogical.

Kacee

LH and UA offer duplicative flights to FRA and/or MUC from every other domestic UA hub except DEN. So I don't really see why people are raising this as if it's somehow a bar to UA offering LAX-FRA on its own metal.

KosherKimchee

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that there was a reasoned decision to REDUCE capacity recently on LAX/FRA from A388 to A346 so immediately adding back much more capacity via an additional 787 seems to make no sense or at best reflects massive indecision amongst *A partners.