lhrsfo

They can but what's the point? Apart from NZ, which is daily, everyone is x times per day. Who will bother with UA if they can only get you there and back on rare occasions?

entropy

They just don't have enough space at LAX, so they have to cut a flight here and there, its not a big deal.

But yes, it is indeed dangerous when competitors (AA, which offers an F product that isn't just a bigger seat and a thimble of soup, and DL which offers a much better onboard experience in J)

I fully expect that in the next 3 years, United will change LAX to a focus city because they can "more profitably deploy their assets in their fortress SFO hub".

mgcsinc

Basically everyone.

Step 1. Go to Kayak.

Step 2. Search for flight on specific day.

Step 3. Pick flight.

EWR764

It's also worth noting that UA and Star are a distant 3rd in the transatlantic market at LHR now that DL jumped in bed with VS. UA will be able to compete in entrenched hub markets but I'm sure they are feeling the squeeze elsewhere against AA/BA and DL/VS.

Yes, but there's not much that can be done about it now, I'm afraid. The smart money in the LAXLHR market isn't flying UA and that's not going to change. United likely has concluded it is best served treating the route as 'just another' transatlantic line, subjecting it to the same sort of variable scheduling based on demand as the rest of the system, as opposed to absorbing losses by operating during slack periods to chase HVFs that just aren't there. By the same token, the bread-and-butter UA flyer out of LAX probably isn't loyal to UA on the basis of the LHR service alone, and may not respond negatively to the change. UA's core LAX customers seem to be primarily transcon and Pacific travelers, for whom the LHR link is incremental, i.e. just another part of the portfolio. UA can't be all things to all people, and as its underperformance relative to its network peers continues, it's going to have to pick its battles.

It'll be a 787 before long, I bet. I'm not saying the route is in any danger, but in 2015, LAXLHR is not a sacred cow for an airline that seems to have fewer of them by the day...

cubachao

I think pvg will be next reducing service after DL start the direct flight.

gengar

Yikes - can UA really be doing that badly on this route? Sometimes I have trouble buying paid F on this route on AA!

LASUA1K

Downsizing LAX continues.

Sykes

That may be because both AA and UA (as well as their JV partners) price paid F at a relatively small premium to paid J on this route--usually less than a $500 premium over J each way.

lhrsfo

It's been clear for a while that UA underperforms on this route - it's far emptier than SFO, even when SFO is 2x daily. But then UA underperforms out of SFO also. It has a small market share to LHR and CDG (I'm excluding FRA as it's part of a JV) and zero to AMS, CPH, ZRH etc.

Kacee

Which is really rather amazing considering the opportunity here.

I read somewhere that SK was shocked at the success of their (relatively) new SFO-CPH flight.

UA should be dominant TATL ex-SFO but it's not even close. For example, BA has greater lift SFO-LHR, with two daily 747s.

sinoflyer

W+ GPU, yes.

channa

What opportunity?

Discerning customers fly TATL carriers with better products.

Budget customers who like paying for drinks are flying budget carriers like Norwegian out of OAK.

It's not clear how UA is positioning itself.

skycrab

I found there is a reduction of flights between LHR and ORD around that time too, namely UA958 and UA929 are missing at the start of April (conveniently when I needed these flights), so I don't think its a permanent change, but something must be happening then, whether its lower demand for TATL, or equipment/crew shortages, or something else.

spin88

I think this is entirely correct, but the entire purpose of the merger was to be the biggest carrier, with the biggest market share in the biggest US markets, and serve the world, gaining Corporate market share and HVFers in the process.

These things have nock on impacts, which are now being felt yet again. SEA is basically gone, BKK is gone, and LAX is being pulled down. But LAX is not just a big market, its a gateway market. There is a huge amount of entertainment and finance traffic between LAX-LHR. If UA does not offer that, it basically is giving up on many corporate accounts in LA. It then looses that traffic on its TPAC network and to places like JFK on P.S. Then P.S. is less profitable, does that get cut next?

Delta (and AA) have been willing to build out their networks, and absorb losses on routes they need in the system to gain valuable clients. United appears to look at each route in isolation, which I think is part of why they are doing so badly at this point.

cubachao

You need to pay for drinks on UA as well