UA ends LAX to New Orleans daily flight [effective August, 2016]
May 28, 2016, 5:48 pm
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
I think Alaska wants some gates at LAX and SFO, slots at JFK and DCA for Pac NW transcons to the East (think more frequency out of SEA, PDX), and less competition up and down the coast.
Last edited by Fanjet; May 28, 2016 at 5:55 pm
May 29, 2016, 7:03 am
#92
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
I mixed up the AirCal timing - thought AA had started the SJC hub in '85, but it wasn't until a year after AirCal.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-...n-jose-airport
And Alaska has the problem that AA / US did with the California fliers they picked up - the inevitable discontent among the base who 'liked' their former airline and don't like the new way.
There's no way they keep even close to 100% of the Virgin America SFO flier base - they will scatter - both by some route shifts and discontent - and the airline with the frequency and sweetness will pick them up. JetBlue will get a good bump on JFK transcon (it will also probably get almost all the NYC based Virgin loyalists), UA will pick up some EWR and mid range traffic, or simply see fares more rational with less EWR flying, Southwest will get Bay Area short haul frequency based flying.
Alaska makes it clear the East Coast slots are key:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0adbf...#axzz4A378qga0
"Alaska plans to use Virgin’s slots at east coast airports that have no free slots for new flights — including Reagan National Airport in Washington and New York’s LaGuardia and JFK — to strengthen its transcontinental offering from California."
LGA and DAL slots could potentially be swapped for JFK, DCA. Delta is already cutting back frequency on DCA-BOS/NYC and trying marginal routes to preserve.
Whether they are all on SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA like today, or some get used for SMF, SNA, PDX, SEA to the East Coast we will see. But Alaska has found east coast slots a problem for its entire network, and will more so when it divorces from DL and loses that frequency in SEA.
I could see AS shifting some transcon flying to airports that have little transcon service, so it doesn't have to compete on the frequency the big guys have at LAX/SFO, or to airports like PDX/SEA where it is the big frequency player. And use the LAX slots for more up and down the west coast service where they have a shot at leading frequency vs Southwest. But they may get into the low yield trap that AA/US did trying to play that game.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-...n-jose-airport
And Alaska has the problem that AA / US did with the California fliers they picked up - the inevitable discontent among the base who 'liked' their former airline and don't like the new way.
There's no way they keep even close to 100% of the Virgin America SFO flier base - they will scatter - both by some route shifts and discontent - and the airline with the frequency and sweetness will pick them up. JetBlue will get a good bump on JFK transcon (it will also probably get almost all the NYC based Virgin loyalists), UA will pick up some EWR and mid range traffic, or simply see fares more rational with less EWR flying, Southwest will get Bay Area short haul frequency based flying.
USAir very much acquired PSA in order to have an immediate market presence on the west coast; and where they basically had almost none. Thus, there was no PSA-USAir competition. And American purchased AirCal to increase their west coast market presence as well. And the two airlines hardly competed with each other either. The problem was that much of the former carriers' respective customer base wasn't too impressed by the new owners. And Southwest (which had a growing presence in the state) took full advantage of it. Kind of what Alaska probably intends to do at SFO. Because now those UA fliers at SFO wanting a viable alternative will have an airline program which will give them the cooperative networks of AS/VX+AA+DL (at least as long as the AS-DL partnership exists). As well as CX, JL, EK, KE, and BA.
VX has 12 slot pairs at JFK. Many of which exist at times that are easy to get on their own. VX has 1 slot pair at DCA which is of value to AS. There is not much more untapped demand left at PDX and SEA for AS to grow. And what would be the point of acquiring more gates if there is no intent on using them? As they would be forced to relinquish those gates.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0adbf...#axzz4A378qga0
"Alaska plans to use Virgin’s slots at east coast airports that have no free slots for new flights — including Reagan National Airport in Washington and New York’s LaGuardia and JFK — to strengthen its transcontinental offering from California."
LGA and DAL slots could potentially be swapped for JFK, DCA. Delta is already cutting back frequency on DCA-BOS/NYC and trying marginal routes to preserve.
Whether they are all on SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA like today, or some get used for SMF, SNA, PDX, SEA to the East Coast we will see. But Alaska has found east coast slots a problem for its entire network, and will more so when it divorces from DL and loses that frequency in SEA.
I could see AS shifting some transcon flying to airports that have little transcon service, so it doesn't have to compete on the frequency the big guys have at LAX/SFO, or to airports like PDX/SEA where it is the big frequency player. And use the LAX slots for more up and down the west coast service where they have a shot at leading frequency vs Southwest. But they may get into the low yield trap that AA/US did trying to play that game.
Last edited by goalie; May 29, 2016 at 9:13 pm Reason: Quote the member's name when quoting multiple parts of their post
May 29, 2016, 9:07 am
#93
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA(EXP)UA(1K/1MM) Marriott(PP,LifeTime Plat) Hertz(5*)
Posts: 449
ex-LAX I can't think of a major market in the western part of the US that UA serves and DL and AA don't. And other than LAX-MSP (on a RJ on UA, AA flies it mainline) I can't think of a single flight that UA has ex-LA into a competitors hubs in the Eastern UA, and I can for DL and AA. (e.g. AA flies LAX-IAH, LAX-IAD, LAX-ATL, Dl flies LAX-MIA). Of course you see this in the market share numbers.
My point is that as UA pulls down, and AA/DL add ex-LAX, the lack of connecting traffic will eventually kill LAX other than as a spoke city. United is well on the way to this.
And don't tell me this was a planned decision, everyone knew how important LAX was, and it was a city that United was No 1 in when Jeff took over. A quote from a 2013 article sort of brings it back:
'"LAX is the pot of gold at the end of a very rare rainbow," one airline executive told me recently. "Billions are at stake and no airline sees a profitable path forward without having a meaningful presence at the airport that defines the Los Angeles market."
With about 19 percent of the market in the 12 months ending in January, United Airlines (NYSE: UAL) has traditionally been the LAX leader. But American Airlines (OTC: AAMRQ), with more than 18 percent, has always been a close second. After a 20-year drive to dominate the so-called California Corridor of intrastate flights, Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) is a solid number-three with an estimated 15.7 percent market share. Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) has recently been an LAX also-ran'
What happened was the former management team treated LAX like it treated IAH and EWR, and cut service quality and service and expected people to suck it up "they will fly United for price and schedule" I believe was the mantra. HVFers fled, and United just bled corporate accounts. I've talked to people in LA, it was and is brutal. And when the HVFers left, the entire thing became unprofitable, so they cut, which caused more traffic to go. Fundamentally former management did not understand the market, and shot itself in the foot, an injury that continues to fester.
This is just a symptom of a much larger issue United created for itself ex-LAX. Moving traffic to SFO is not by choice (SFO is a horrible hub to connect in with the weather) its by necessity because United no longer has the high value traffic ex-LAX to maintain it as a hub.
p.s. and this played a big part in PS going away. United lost so much full fare traffic ex-LAX that it made those flights unprofitable, even with a reduced schedule, which in turn cost United more business. But without the LAX routes, there was no way to keep PS only to SFO, so UA moved it to EWR. It is a perfect example of the nock on effect of allowing competition to eat away at your traffic base. As we say here rinse, repeat, rinse again....
My point is that as UA pulls down, and AA/DL add ex-LAX, the lack of connecting traffic will eventually kill LAX other than as a spoke city. United is well on the way to this.
And don't tell me this was a planned decision, everyone knew how important LAX was, and it was a city that United was No 1 in when Jeff took over. A quote from a 2013 article sort of brings it back:
'"LAX is the pot of gold at the end of a very rare rainbow," one airline executive told me recently. "Billions are at stake and no airline sees a profitable path forward without having a meaningful presence at the airport that defines the Los Angeles market."
With about 19 percent of the market in the 12 months ending in January, United Airlines (NYSE: UAL) has traditionally been the LAX leader. But American Airlines (OTC: AAMRQ), with more than 18 percent, has always been a close second. After a 20-year drive to dominate the so-called California Corridor of intrastate flights, Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) is a solid number-three with an estimated 15.7 percent market share. Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) has recently been an LAX also-ran'
What happened was the former management team treated LAX like it treated IAH and EWR, and cut service quality and service and expected people to suck it up "they will fly United for price and schedule" I believe was the mantra. HVFers fled, and United just bled corporate accounts. I've talked to people in LA, it was and is brutal. And when the HVFers left, the entire thing became unprofitable, so they cut, which caused more traffic to go. Fundamentally former management did not understand the market, and shot itself in the foot, an injury that continues to fester.
This is just a symptom of a much larger issue United created for itself ex-LAX. Moving traffic to SFO is not by choice (SFO is a horrible hub to connect in with the weather) its by necessity because United no longer has the high value traffic ex-LAX to maintain it as a hub.
p.s. and this played a big part in PS going away. United lost so much full fare traffic ex-LAX that it made those flights unprofitable, even with a reduced schedule, which in turn cost United more business. But without the LAX routes, there was no way to keep PS only to SFO, so UA moved it to EWR. It is a perfect example of the nock on effect of allowing competition to eat away at your traffic base. As we say here rinse, repeat, rinse again....
Once the computer systems were merged in 2012 that is when UA@LAX started its biggest downward spiral. UA management was in the process of saying GF is a money loser so we will cut it out of the planes. They cut many of the pmUA international routes and made them pmCO routes. Dropped the first class market and told many customers if you don't like it then go someplace else.
I remember that as this happened and talking with the great GS staff at LAX they had many customers who would come to the terminal to say goodbye as they were not flying UA anymore because of it. And they were not freebie flyers. They were people making weekly trips.
So the HFV market that was told to pound sand at LAX went to other airlines. Which in turn caused them to not be as profitable on other routes as they no longer had those HVF's.
It has been a cascading effect ever since. bad service, bad product, and an ever shrinking route network. If I can get a non stop to my final destination over a connection I am there. And AA is realizing that the entertainment industry wants and pays for those flights and has been constantly improving it not to cater to that industry per say...but it sure feels like it when I fly them.
UA may be investing in remodeling lax but I don't think that has a thing to do with anything except trying to not be the only airline in lax at a terminal that feels like it is from the 70's maybe 80's.
May 29, 2016, 9:10 am
#94
Join Date: May 2004
Location: US
Programs: UA Lifetime Gold, IHG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 973
I agree with many of the posters here. It is not that LAX-MSY route is that important, but for a small hub (for UA) like LAX every route counts. The elites who count on UA, this will be one more reason to not choose UA and more flights will get affected. Soon it could be SLC. And there are a few who do connect in LAX, all those connecting passengers will go elsewhere.
Bottom line is UA retreats at the sign of competition and even at hubs they would cut if faced with more competition.
Bottom line is UA retreats at the sign of competition and even at hubs they would cut if faced with more competition.
May 29, 2016, 9:14 am
#95
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA1K
Posts: 4,044
Alaska makes it clear the East Coast slots are key:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0adbf...#axzz4A378qga0
"Alaska plans to use Virgin’s slots at east coast airports that have no free slots for new flights — including Reagan National Airport in Washington and New York’s LaGuardia and JFK — to strengthen its transcontinental offering from California."
LGA and DAL slots could potentially be swapped for JFK, DCA. Delta is already cutting back frequency on DCA-BOS/NYC and trying marginal routes to preserve.
Whether they are all on SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA like today, or some get used for SMF, SNA, PDX, SEA to the East Coast we will see. But Alaska has found east coast slots a problem for its entire network, and will more so when it divorces from DL and loses that frequency in SEA.
I could see AS shifting some transcon flying to airports that have little transcon service, so it doesn't have to compete on the frequency the big guys have at LAX/SFO, or to airports like PDX/SEA where it is the big frequency player. And use the LAX slots for more up and down the west coast service where they have a shot at leading frequency vs Southwest. But they may get into the low yield trap that AA/US did trying to play that game.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0adbf...#axzz4A378qga0
"Alaska plans to use Virgin’s slots at east coast airports that have no free slots for new flights — including Reagan National Airport in Washington and New York’s LaGuardia and JFK — to strengthen its transcontinental offering from California."
LGA and DAL slots could potentially be swapped for JFK, DCA. Delta is already cutting back frequency on DCA-BOS/NYC and trying marginal routes to preserve.
Whether they are all on SFO/LAX-JFK/DCA like today, or some get used for SMF, SNA, PDX, SEA to the East Coast we will see. But Alaska has found east coast slots a problem for its entire network, and will more so when it divorces from DL and loses that frequency in SEA.
I could see AS shifting some transcon flying to airports that have little transcon service, so it doesn't have to compete on the frequency the big guys have at LAX/SFO, or to airports like PDX/SEA where it is the big frequency player. And use the LAX slots for more up and down the west coast service where they have a shot at leading frequency vs Southwest. But they may get into the low yield trap that AA/US did trying to play that game.
i am excited to see how this all plays out.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; May 29, 2016 at 10:00 am Reason: repaired quote
May 29, 2016, 9:40 am
#96
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
I am guessing DL will buy at least one gate. Maybe B6 or UA buys the other. I am willing to bet they will both sell, due to the AA partnership (key hub at DFW).
May 29, 2016, 10:27 am
#97
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 366
UA is subleasing it's DAL gates to WN, foregoing the opportunity to fly routes like DAL-SFO, even though many FT on the AS forum insist on the value of DAL O&D likely to HVC. Atleast UA didn't want to keep ops in DAL. It likely won't want VX/AS's gates if it's not even using it's own.
May 29, 2016, 1:15 pm
#98
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: UA SP, DL SM MM, AS 75K, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond.
Posts: 2,596
May 29, 2016, 5:37 pm
#99
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Once the computer systems were merged in 2012 that is when UA@LAX started its biggest downward spiral. UA management was in the process of saying GF is a money loser so we will cut it out of the planes. They cut many of the pmUA international routes and made them pmCO routes. Dropped the first class market and told many customers if you don't like it then go someplace else.
I remember that as this happened and talking with the great GS staff at LAX they had many customers who would come to the terminal to say goodbye as they were not flying UA anymore because of it. And they were not freebie flyers. They were people making weekly trips.
So the HFV market that was told to pound sand at LAX went to other airlines. Which in turn caused them to not be as profitable on other routes as they no longer had those HVF's.
It has been a cascading effect ever since. bad service, bad product, and an ever shrinking route network. If I can get a non stop to my final destination over a connection I am there. And AA is realizing that the entertainment industry wants and pays for those flights and has been constantly improving it not to cater to that industry per say...but it sure feels like it when I fly them.
UA may be investing in remodeling lax but I don't think that has a thing to do with anything except trying to not be the only airline in lax at a terminal that feels like it is from the 70's maybe 80's.
I remember that as this happened and talking with the great GS staff at LAX they had many customers who would come to the terminal to say goodbye as they were not flying UA anymore because of it. And they were not freebie flyers. They were people making weekly trips.
So the HFV market that was told to pound sand at LAX went to other airlines. Which in turn caused them to not be as profitable on other routes as they no longer had those HVF's.
It has been a cascading effect ever since. bad service, bad product, and an ever shrinking route network. If I can get a non stop to my final destination over a connection I am there. And AA is realizing that the entertainment industry wants and pays for those flights and has been constantly improving it not to cater to that industry per say...but it sure feels like it when I fly them.
UA may be investing in remodeling lax but I don't think that has a thing to do with anything except trying to not be the only airline in lax at a terminal that feels like it is from the 70's maybe 80's.
This LAX-MSY flight cut (which has fallen to a single flight, where UA used to have multiple flights/day) is just part of a pattern, a pattern that was set in motion by Jeff's "changes you will like" And I agree with you that as they loose more traffic, other flights will go away. Looking at really cheap flights (where UA is clearly not getting high value traffic), LAX-PHX (now three flights for the summer) will be cut back, LAX-SLC (two flights a day on RJs at this point) will go away at some point, and LAX-MSP (two RJ flights) would appear at risk, and I wonder how long UA can continue to fly a single LAX-BOS flight daily given the competition.
This is how a hub dies...
May 29, 2016, 6:46 pm
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
There's no way they keep even close to 100% of the Virgin America SFO flier base - they will scatter - both by some route shifts and discontent - and the airline with the frequency and sweetness will pick them up. JetBlue will get a good bump on JFK transcon (it will also probably get almost all the NYC based Virgin loyalists), UA will pick up some EWR and mid range traffic, or simply see fares more rational with less EWR flying, Southwest will get Bay Area short haul frequency based flying.
Last edited by goalie; May 29, 2016 at 9:12 pm Reason: Quote the member's name when quoting multiple parts of their post
May 30, 2016, 11:24 am
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,971
I don't think UA is giving up on LAX. If it did, then why all the renovations? It definitely is downsizing. Crazy how T6 is just full of passengers from AA, AS and DL.
I also wonder how its *A feeder role plays into the strategy between SFO and LAX. UA is obviously focusing on SFO but it seems LAX has a lot more international frequencies by *A carriers. If UA does not provide good feeds (schedule, pricing) for them, it really hurts the alliance. While I don't know how much UA cares about that, it seems that would further hurt it at LAX, which also has a huge O&D market. If carriers start moving some frequencies to SFO so their passengers can connect better with UA, then that is adding competition for UA at SFO.
The completion of the air-side connection from TBIT to T7/T8 also makes LA desirable for connections.
They were also saying years ago that LA has to be there as a backup for SFO.
I also wonder how its *A feeder role plays into the strategy between SFO and LAX. UA is obviously focusing on SFO but it seems LAX has a lot more international frequencies by *A carriers. If UA does not provide good feeds (schedule, pricing) for them, it really hurts the alliance. While I don't know how much UA cares about that, it seems that would further hurt it at LAX, which also has a huge O&D market. If carriers start moving some frequencies to SFO so their passengers can connect better with UA, then that is adding competition for UA at SFO.
The completion of the air-side connection from TBIT to T7/T8 also makes LA desirable for connections.
They were also saying years ago that LA has to be there as a backup for SFO.
May 30, 2016, 12:17 pm
#102
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,752
going the other way, TBIT arrivals all have to re-clear security. there's no tsa pre at TBIT, so the airside connector serves no benefit to connect to a domestic UA flight. the walk outside/landside from TBIT to T7/8 (where there is tsa pre) is much faster.
May 30, 2016, 1:34 pm
#103
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
That out of the way, UA is not closing down LAX. It's merely cancelling a money-losing spoke.
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.
UA still serves MSY-SFO nonstop, correct? SFO provides more TPAC connections on UA metal than does LAX, so why not route those connections thru the hub with more routes?
May 30, 2016, 2:21 pm
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,971
nobody is walking airside from T7/8 to TBIT. it's a miserable 30+ min brisk walk and super easy to get lost along the way. plus, what UA to TBIT *A connections are viable? everything is easily funneled via SFO.
going the other way, TBIT arrivals all have to re-clear security. there's no tsa pre at TBIT, so the airside connector serves no benefit to connect to a domestic UA flight. the walk outside/landside from TBIT to T7/8 (where there is tsa pre) is much faster.
going the other way, TBIT arrivals all have to re-clear security. there's no tsa pre at TBIT, so the airside connector serves no benefit to connect to a domestic UA flight. the walk outside/landside from TBIT to T7/8 (where there is tsa pre) is much faster.
The tunnels are a little hot and I am sure the air is not great. The only trick was there was no escalator going up at T4 - you either walk the stairs or take the elevator. Outside walk is also not pleasant with all the smokers.
SFO is definitely much easier and pleasant but everyone has to do LAX once to check out TBIT and the *A Lounge! It seems the *A carriers also have more frequencies and schedule diversity into LAX?