Axey

Announcement went out to agencies earlier today. I don't have a public link.

eigenvector

Conversion to seasonal is being reported by Airlineroute.net:
http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/...rvice-in-2017/

spin88

I questioned how United's sub-par product (in J and not having a PE) would hold up vs NZ when they started this route, and this suggests that United is not pulling the business traffic needed to sustain the route. When I looked, UA is much cheaper, suggesting NZ is holding up, UA is not. If one believes - as has been repeatedly advocated that network and a strong set of corporate accounts wins out over product - UA should have done fine on this route.

I do wonder long term what this says about United (a) not having PE, and (b) going to 17" seats in Y on everything but the 763s. NZ is 10x on the 772 using 17.8" seats and narrow, narrow isles. on the 773 with 17" seats. However, their pitch is 33" and 32"

My guess is that NZ got the full price J tickets, and the high value Y went to NZ PE, and UA was left with lower yield corporate accounts and low priced Y, which was not enough when loads got lighter.

gold23

I would imagine you're on to something here. Personally, there is 0 chance I would fly Y to AKL on any UA aircraft. 0. I've been tracking this route, and my focus has been on award J space (was one of those very surprised by the plethora of F seats on UA recently), realistic paid J, or most likely, PE on NZ.

EWR764

Appreciate the clarification... I must have confused SFO and IAH re: NZ service. In view of your point that UA's flight really only added incremental capacity to the market (and more in the offseason) it's likely just a seasonal rationalizing of capacity, though I already see the narrative (predictably) shifting to a condemnation of United's product!

wpr8e

Nice try. United has a JV with NZ on TPAC flights. Therefore there's metal neutrality and United/NZ probably assessed that it is better to operate to higher yielding European markets in the Northern Summer and let NZ continue with their daily service thus improving network yields for both carriers. Service is still uninterrupted.

Or we could continue to bang on about United's inability to compete, blah blah blah.

aCavalierInCoach

Wow. Very disappointing. Flights in the window do appear to have disappeared from the booking engine.

I have award flights to the south island booked with the UA overwater segment confirmed in biz using GPUs. wonder when, and how, united is going to try to make this right (reservations still showing intact on united.com...)

kirkwoodj

I would call now rather than being at the airline's whim...

spin88

First, this service was supposed to be year round. Yet, UA has found that it can't operate even a 787-8 on the route, despite its huge UA footprint, massive mileage program, and corporate accounts. Something changed. The change is particularly relevent given that the long time wisdom is that if a flight is not run year round, it misses out on a lot of the business traffic, which takes a while to build up, and the goes away when the flight is not on the schedule.

Second, a JV does not mean that the airlines just split revenue, let alone profit. I know with the ANA JV, Y revenue is split according to a formula based upon how many seats each side puts in. But the extra revenue for F or J and E+ and PE is handeled differently, with each side keeping most of it.

I have no idea how the UA-NZ JV works. But it is highly likely that if people book NZ J and NZ PE vs. UA J and UA E+ that NZ is keeping that extra revenue, and UA is not going to be able to cover its costs, even with in essence a subsidy for the NZ flight.

p.s. And I might add that the airlines adapt to the JV rules. ANA - unlike JAL - slashed the space in Y. It went 9x on the 787 and started to put 10x on new 77W deliveries (before it appears backing off). While ANA used to be a much higher quality experience, now JAL clearly is. Yet, the cuts did not happen in either PE or J, only Y. My guess is that ANA cheapening (or densifying) its product was a direct result of a JV in which in Y they were rewarded not for getting a higher revenue premium (which they had to share) but in part based upon how may seats they flew.

EWR764

This is all speculation. UA/NZ is a revenue-sharing, not profit-sharing, JV in the same vein as A++ and UA/NH. In that respect, each airline draws a share of pooled revenue based on contribution of capacity. UA/NZ is not just AKL, but also Australia. Industrywide capacity to AU/NZ is up, fares are down, and it follows pulling a small number (comparatively) of seats out of the market during a seasonal low should, in theory, improve yield performance. UA was only 3x during the several northern summer months it operated the service last year, albeit a new route, so the seasonal suspension does not result in a massive reduction in yoy seats and the JV retains a presence in the market.

If AA is committed to the NZ market, it has to maintain its own metal on LAX-AKL as their proposed JV with QF to cover NZ was recently denied. I'm skeptical about the future of that route, as I understand it was launched in anticipation of QF/AA approval. AA seems to have a relatively high loss tolerance for strategic TPAC routes, however, so time will tell how important AKL is to the broader AA LAX and Pacific network.

OR, traffic to/from/through Japan is increasing and densifying Y cabins (in lockstep with an industrywide trend) allows NH to increase capacity/revenue at low capital cost.

wpr8e

You're missing the forest through the trees. It is irrelevant that UA intended to fly year round (in fact the flight started out 3/w at launch). Market conditions change and given the JV with NZ, it might be more beneficial to the joint network to withdraw service during slower periods to improve overall yield.

Secondly, your statement about business traffic is a red herring. Under the conditions of most business agreements between United and corporate partners, under a JV (this also includes NH and Atlantic partners) United can sell and market a NZ flight identically as if it was a UA flight. JVs mean metal neutral. Who is flying does not matter.

Actually, yes it does. A JV is by definition a split of all revenue and costs irrespective of who operates the aircraft. Can you prove your statement about ANA?

Not according to standard practice. And I'm not following your second thought at all. Both airlines share the revenue and the costs jointly. If an airline can make more profit flying their own metal over a JV partner (lower operating costs, labor agreements, etc), then the JV benefits (i.e., both carriers). Therefore if UA pulls flying from NZ and can reallocate that capacity to another market, thus helping the JV, both NZ and UA win. By definition, a JV is decided jointly therefore UA and NZ both agreed on this reduction of service.

None of this makes any sense. Adding or subtracting seats is no different than switching aircraft due to seasonal demand.

1011TriStar

I have a flight booked during that time as well. I can see the reservation and seats logging in with PNR, but cannot find the flight if trying to book on United's website. Called United and agent stated the flight is still available and my reservation is fine. Advised her of reports that's the SFO - Auckland flight is now seasonal and she states it is not true. Explained to her it the flights are not showing on United's website and she claims it is sold out. Will call back later and hopefully speak to another agent.

JVPhoto

Heh...a few weeks ago I waited a day or two to book a Sept trip when I saw R space. It then tried up...so maybe it was a good sign to prevent a headache.

Now I've found R space soon after Oct 28. That date shouldn't change right? IIRC from here Oct 28 is the standard seasonal marker for airlines.

BayAreaTraveler

As someone who has flown SFO-AKL twice and AKL-SFO once last year, I'm not surprised to see this route go seasonal. The last time I flew it, at least half of the J cabin was empty and I think it eventually got filled up with non-revs. I can't say that I'm sad to see this go. NZ J has a far superior product. The UA FAs were awful and not as up to par as what you would normally see on TPAC/TATL flights. I would fly NZ J hands down any day of the week, but it looks like if you try to purchase on united.com, it books into the P fare bucket (which united lists as "deep discount economy") and you only get 1x PQM. I wouldn't mind purchasing the same ticket (ticketed in J and getting 2x PQM) on NZ but unfortunately it doesn't count toward PQDs.

EWR764

Sort of. What you describe is kind of a hybrid between a revenue-sharing and profit-sharing JV. One is concerned with top-line (revenue) while the other focuses on bottom-line (profit) results. UA prefers the revenue-share model while DL/AF/KL/AZ is set up to share profits. In a revenue-share model, the capacity decisions are made to maximize pooled revenue with the least capacity possible. That approach normalizes variance in cost structures between, say, United and ANA or LH and Air Canada, and each airline will derive profit or loss based on how much it costs to operate its capacity within the JV.

OTOH, a profit-sharing model has an incentive to pair the operator and equipment with the highest margin potential to each given city pair, which is why we seem to see DL metal on some 'oddball' TATL routes like PIT/RDU-CDG, EWR-AMS/CDG, etc. Delta's ability to operate 757s, or more dense 767 configurations, along with its cost structure and brand, allows for profitability (or smaller losses) in strategically-valuable markets AF/KL cannot duplicate. Conversely, on a route like JFK-CDG/AMS, where there is a large premium market and a stronger affinity to the 'home' carrier at one point of sale, a stronger F/J:Y ratio and the local brand might result in higher margins for a more AF/KL-centric operation.