LASUA1K

Of course international flights are in danger. Why wouldn't they be? Once you lose different cities, you lose some connections capabilities. Let's not forget JFK, people couldn't believe LHR, NRT were cut. What is the point of the international flights, when they can just feed them thru other hubs. I see MEL moving to SFO eventually. SYD can be flown by a 350 via SFO when they come in. NRT can just be moved to ANA, LHR they can't compete as is, so based on that theory, they will probably cut that one. PVG can go via SFO. Mexico flights can stay as is, or just move those also.

UA is shrinking in LAX and will eventually be hub flights with a few vacation destinations.

EWR764

It's a matter of resource allocation. If yields on a single-daily flight (to a medium-sized city that happens to almost directly overfly a massive - but struggling - hub) are being trashed by aggressive competition, is that really a core market UA needs to be in?

UA has been flying LAX-MSY for a long time, but two airlines with a larger local presence on the MSY end (DL and WN) offer better schedules, plus with NK and AA entering, there's probably too much capacity.

fly18725

I guess they're in danger because United is ending all service to LAX per post 14.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

For better or worst, LAX is not going to let one or two airlines dominate. UA already has a huge operation just up the coast, something that neither AA or DL have, but wish they had. Some posters seem to think AA is building a fortress-style hub at LAX. It can't because LAX won't let 'em - they'll never get near the scale of UA's SFO hub. LAX is fare-competitive market. A lot of the routes UA is cutting (or has cut) are the lower $ routes. With the loss of the 4 T-6 gates, Hawaii departures have been scaled back. I'd toss MSY in with Hawaii as a leisure route, especially since oil and gas has had the wind knocked out of it and most of that industry has consolidated to Houston. UA ought to expand their p.s. service to more cities (ORD, BOS, IAD) from LAX.

airzim

or spend $500M in Terminal renovations just to shut it all down and lay down to DL and AA.

EWR764

The price must have been right for the T-6 deal with AA, because during the renovation, 1-2 T7 gates have been OOS at various times in the last year due to construction on the new concourse entrance/security checkpoint/UA club.

Once the renovation work is done, United operations can hopefully settle into somewhat of an equilibrium.

JOSECONLSCREW28

Flight is ending because it had poor yields and wasn't making money has nothing to do with not wanting to compete

artvandalay

Deja vu. Last December, I made the mistake of alleging UA was abandoning LAX, and was met with a fury of indignation by predictable UA apologists. (Never mind T6.)

Fact: UA is systematically downsizing in LAX, and as long as the current management is in place, will continue to downsize in LAX.

It's what they do when they can't or don't want to compete: they fold. (See also: GF.)

DWFI

UA @ LAX will see cuts when there is a recession and demand gets trashed. It's easy to operate everything now when oil is cheap.

The bottom line is that UA is its own worst enemy. All of its LA services can simply generate higher yields at SFO. The importance of LA is so much higher to AA especially (DL somewhat less so) than UA that it is naturally going to fall back.

When AA launches LAXMEL, UA will probably retreat to SFOMEL - simply because it will make them more money. AA doesn't have a choice. Doug and Co seem to be hellbent on making LAX a big hub - and rightfully so. They need it.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Gee, how come UA didn't build a huge new UC in CLE when they down-sized there? UA's commitment to LAX is clearly demonstrated in the terminal renovation there. The loss of T-6 was the last real down-sizing. IIRC, UA didn't wholly volunteer to lose those gates. The completion of the T-7 remodel should see gate 71A back (and maybe one more)? If there's a systematic down-size, not sure why UA is adding a gate.

AA is gate-limited. They can't grow much more. They'll have to cut routes to add routes. I can see them cutting the Hawaii routes.

You are confusing some with reality. LAX to MSY is about more than making money - it's the principle

LASUA1K

A renovation doesn't really mean it will maintain "hub" status. It needed a renovation. They can just up the flights to all the hubs, and continue flying to Hawaii and some Mexico/Central America destinations.

At this point, LHR will probably be next as other posters have claimed, it really makes no sense to keep on flying that route as it has plenty of competition.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, financially UA probably can't compete with all the competition in LAX. The international flights that are currently flown from LAX can easily be transitioned to the Airbus 350's up the road in SFO. I don't see any reason for MEL to continue from LAX, as they have competition on that route also. That will probably go away soon.

The problem with eliminating flights to mid size cities, is that eventually elites can no longer get there non stop from LAX, so they will just become elite on a different airline.

LIH

+1 I think it also misses the point that if you're going to try to capture a better than industry yield overall based on having an unbeatable network (which is touted so often) having a direct flight to a major metro area that also happens to be a popular vacation destination from all of your hubs is probably important. I don't live in LA anymore but if they had cut this flight when I lived there it would have been one more reason to move away from UA. I'm sure it was MSY or some other equally important direct getting cut but it goes to show you just how tough the airline business is, still.

beyondhere

LAX-MSY might have had too much competition and MSY might be too small a market.

While UA ends that route, I'd hope UA would consider LAX-PHL. It's only flown by AA and NK. NK flies a westbound red-eye and it's customer base is limited to leisure passengers, and a segment of them. Atleast two of AA's daytime nonstop flights are generally very high in fare, and the early flight that doesn't feed into PHL's TATL flights, likely is filled with business traveler O&D. I doubt a lot of pax are connecting LAX-PHL-ISP/SWF/HPN to some very small NE airport that AA is filling seats on those pax.

A second carrier likely could work competing for the O&D market with business pax. It would somewhat fit in with UA flying LAX-IAD, LAX-BWI and LAX-EWR with 4 contiguous airports along I-95 in the eastern UA if LAX-PHL was in the mix. I don't think WN has PHL expansion in it's plans for a LAX-PHL, and DL seems too pre-occupied with building up SEA and other ventures over a domestic PHL addition.

channa

Well UA already cut New York, so that one is out.

The straw breaking the camel's back is the issue. That's been UA management's issue since the merger -- every cut when assessed as a standalone was not that big of a deal. In aggregate, with every cut -- service, route, you name it, it adds up.

From a LAX perspective, UA continues to maintain their disadvantage. They don't serve SJC like AA or DL do, they don't serve OAK like DL does, and they have less service to SMF.

New York is already gone, they don't serve MIA (AA and DL both do), DL/AS/AA have more frequency to SEA, etc.

The list goes on...

Kacee

I don't doubt that. It is not exactly a core business route.

But it's still not a positive indicator of UA's overall position at LAX . . . rather, it raises the question, if other airlines can make money on the route, why can't UA? Death by a thousand cuts (and no UA won't die at LAX, but they do have a problem there, and they can't really even start a comeback until the very poor ground experience improves).