787fan

if spin88 loves to talk about "running away from competition", that would be AA not flying JFK-AMS and JFK-FRA, two of the largest and most important cities in Europe

Kacee

That UA cannot sustain a single LAX-HKG flight, while CX upgauges to four daily nonstops speaks volumes about UA's ability and willingness to compete in non-fortress hubs.

FreequentFlier

What does it say about AA and DL, neither of whom fly the route either?

NickP 1K

Regardless of what UA does at LAX, AA is more attractive than it was. Count me as an AA defector. I'm Plat right now on AA and plan to be Exec Plat by Sept.

UA's offering has constantly been inferior at LAX with dated aged facilities that are now only considered for upgrades. Expensive premium offerings that are medicore.

Jan saw my last revenue UA flight after 20 years as a 1K and 2MM. Sick of the PQD issues (I fly 50% non UA - other Star Alliance carriers); it's a hassle to track and plan that nutty - plus not counting day of departure upgrades to PQD was the last straw. Sick of the lack of basic upgrades never clearing on domestic - I'd rather just focus on AA/CX/JL/QF/BA and still fly NH and OZ but credit all to NH from now on. Sure may have the occasional AUS-IAH flight on UA but they can forget 150K of M/H and occasional P/Z/B/Y fares from me. My every now and then W and lower fares made me a leper and I really don't care.

I'm leaving UA with still an F mileage award for the family in the summer to Japan but otherwise no more revenue flights intentionally. 9 GPU's in my account this year will be gifted to family who still fly UA.

See some of you in the AAdvantage forum.

PS: My short haul West coast flights moved to WN years ago; that stays for me. AA picks up the mid range and long hauls

Kacee

Well it says that LAX is not a DL hub, and that AA, consistent with its overall strategy, relies on its OW partner CX for the bulk of its international lift to HKG.

Now back to our scheduled programming, namely a discussion of United's LAX hub here on the United Airlines Mileage Plus forum . . . .

lensman

I mean a hub station is used to connect passengers from their origin to their destination across the hub station rather than fly passengers nonstop from their origin to their destination. Perhaps I should have said "...a station used as a connecting point for O&D travel where the station is neither the origin nor the destination".

I have noticed that UA allows LAX and SFO to be used in "backtracking" connecting itineraries from the intermountain west to the east coast. I wonder why they need to do this?

meFIRST

That is a joke fare that UA puts out. In reality most pax that fly business on this route, pay much less, due to very, VERY, very discounted negotiated prices available to major purchasers of travel at places with large travel budgets, i.e Disney / Universal / BofA for example.

I would say the regulars fly with a 40% discount off retail.

spin88

Lark, AA has $10.6 Billion in the liquid assets, UAL has $6B and falling. AA has higher yield growth and made nearly 3x as much in 2013. AA has integrated labor deals, UAL does not. AA just selected SABRE as its computer system, and is dumping SHARES. AA has the capacity (and new planes) to try new routes, and will, UAL not so much....

And oh, don't bet on "capacity control" from AAL, their 2014 ASMs will be +3.5%, +1% domestically and +9% internationally.
See http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-presentations

Jeff's strategy is based upon an assumption (everyone cuts capacity oligopoly style) that other airlines are not following.

p.s. and the presentation confirms what I have always believed, but found no firm confirmation of.... the yield and PRASM numbers include any extra from "upsells" (to FC or e+) see the 4th bullet.

p.s. Delta is also expanding in 2014.


I don't know, but assume they could not get enough premium traffic to fill a 772, only a 787-8, when they used to fill at 772 and had fewer passengers as CO was not part of UAL. Also note that UAL has flights onward from NRT to other destinations, and they have a huge (or used to have a huge) FF base ex-LAX, not to mention that LAX pulls from an area of nearly 20M people.

Yet while UAL can evidently only fill up a 787-8, its competitors can fill the following: MA 772, SQ A380, DAL 744, JAL 77W, ANA 77W, AA 772ER.

I am more commenting on the downgage being a sign that things are not healthy ex-LAX for UAL, and its evident that LA is not exactly buying the airline that UAL has become.

AA is expanding at LAX, the numbers I posted show this. I have no reason to believe, that a single flight from LAX to EWR per day was "premium heavy" or that they needed it for corporate accounts. Usually to attract the premium traffic you need multiple flights. I don't read much into it, sort of like I don't read much about UAL's ability to compete in their dropping CLE as a hub (I just think their finances are now too weak to support a money loosing hub where there is little premium O/D traffic) or Delta's dropping MEM or CVG (better use of the aircraft elsewhere.

Well, hmmmmm.... AA partners with CX, CX flies 3x per day LAX-HKG on a 77W, soon its 4x. AA has little pacific lift, and as it builds out its lift, DFW-HKG is a better place to start. I feel the same way about AA not flying LAX-HKG the same way I do about UAL not flying to FRA, when LH does, or UAL not . It makes perfect sense. UAL on the other had had a very large traffic base at LAX, it had flights on from HKG and I would have thought could have made a flight work.

So DAL? Unlike UAL, Delta has no onward partner traffic out of HKG (or flights on from HKG) and UAL does. As a result its a terminal flight for them, which has some different issues with it, than one with some connecting traffic. Also Delta has a smaller traffic base at LAX (which is it is building out) and as they go to direct US-Asia flights, I think SEA is a better bet to start. Plus Delta is flying a 744 from LAX-NRT, where it has an onward flight to HKG, so adding a flight would cannibalize some substantial traffic.

I see nothing about running from competition in AA not choosing to fly from JFK into a competitor alliance hub, with no onward flights, anymore than I see the same in UAL not flying SFO-AMS or LAX-AMS. There has to be a LOT of traffic from one city to another to run a terminal flight. For example Both KLM and CO ran IAH-AMS... why? Well there is a huge amount of Shell Oil traffic between the two, and it would support two flights, KLM did one from their end, CO from theirs. I don't think its odd to comment that a huge market (and LAX is huge, largest O/D airport in the US by far) in which one airline flies four (4) 77Ws, and the one time largest carrier can't fly a single flight, with its own metal flights on both ends, to high value business markets, says a lot...

Kacee

Yes, I think I mentioned that upthread.

It's a sad comment. Just reaffirms that UA basically counts on captives, whether they be hub-captives or corporate-captives, to fill the premium cabins. They don't even pretend to compete for the full fare traffic.

mre5765

But not suck for AA: LAX-PHX is hub to hub.

PHX performed well enough for HP, and allowed it to buy US, and in turn allowed HP dba US to buy AA.

Of the big three, I think HP dba AA is best positioned with its hubs.

LarkSFO

But they still won't keep them all, will they?

Your claim was, as I understood it, that AA is going to dump a bunch of this cash in to expanding at LAX.

My response: It would cost too much money, and AA has a lot of other priorities (both organic, and merger related) that they will need to address.

But, as with everything airline related in the US these days, we'll see...

spin88

I remain of the view the UAL's hub location, and network, is unmatched at this point. It should be driving huge traffic to UAL. It at the time of the merger had the best asia nework, the best west coast network, The bigger presence at SFO and LAX, the best hub in the midwest (bigger than AA) at ORD, and the best "western" transet hub in DEN, the only NYC hub, the largest hub/presence in DC, and the best possitioned Texas hub to serve central america (IAH).

AA's only real advantage was Miami (best point to South America). Delta's only real advantage was Atlanta was the best hub in the South.

But as UAL likes to say in their presentations, they have the largest presence in the major US business travel destinations, and its true.

Delta and AA are improving their networks, and have a lot of improvements in the pipeline, but at this point (until mid 2014 when I might argue DAL's network becomes better) UAL has a major advantage.

PaulInTheSky

With the least presence in China for OneWorld, I strongly recommend AA to go after LAX-PEK and LAX-CTU. There are virtually no feeds anywhere except PEK/PVG and scarce connections to (HGH, SHE, DLC, TAO, CAN). UA is being smart to open the CTU route this summer.

I understand the OpenSkies agreement with HKG and the competitions with all other cities, but if AA is serious about going international, they cannot just focus on the South. China is the market that no OneWorld has no hubs in. HKG isn't the perfect connection hub geographically for all the flights from US.

Speaking of LAX, UA will not downsize it, but I doubt if they are going to expand it. It is competing pretty well to the TPAC routes(PVG, NRT, SYD), with strong presence right next door(SFO). SFO is always battling against low ceilings, but SFO will always be UA's main focus.

chinatraderjmr

CORRECT...but your forgetting the TPAC passengers who also make up a large segment of the premium cabins on PS flights. Plenty of people fly from JFK to LAX (and even more to SFO) on a PS flight in business connecting to SYD/NRT/PVG. (and more from SFO)

I just saw my PQD post for my PS flight from JFK-SFO connecting TPAC. While the total PQD's awarded was correct all the way thru JFK-SFO-NRT-BKK when it broke it down I only got $679.00 for the PS flight in D class. Sounds like thats way to low but the majority of the PQD;s went into the SFO-BKK flight making up the difference

FreequentFlier

Ah I see, it's ok to compare UA to its peer group when we are gratuitously bashing them, but absolutely NOT ok when comparing UA against its peers destroys the whole "UA is horrible and terrible and awful and probably kicks puppies" argument.

Got it, thanks. ^

Couple things:

1) In UA's Q4 results (which you've been incredibly quiet about), they announced they'll be growing as well in 2014.
2) [Unduly personalized text edited by Moderator per FT Rules.]

I see. Carry on then.