halls120

If I were a UA shareholder, I'd be concerned about UA's direction, given their poor financial performance compared to the competition. Part of the reason behind this poor performance is the operational decisions that managers in the immediate past and present are making. Giving up on SEA, OAK, and SJC are part of this equation.

jasondc

Let's be clear about something - there was no "giving up on SEA", despite this mythic belief that SEA was some sort of UA behemoth. At its largest, SEA might have had 40 flights, all to united hubs. yes, there was the United Express operation. But UA never really owned SEA or had a commanding presesnce there, the way that some here believe. Yes they gave up NRT, but they have their JV partner there. Instead they focused their resources on SFO, which is a better bet, with more traffic, and higher yielding business.
SJC - they now fly to all of their hubs again minus LAX. They havent 'given up' SJC. They've recently added more flights there. Get your facts straight.
OAK - who cares. it's a low yield wasteland. AA is only back there because they merged with US, so now they have flights to PHX (not LAX or DFW). They had given up on it too. Delta cant even keep a year round Atlanta service from there - that should tell you what a wonderful performer OAK is.
Postulating that UA is having issues because of not serving SJC and OAK is a little preposterous. There are other reasoons, but lacking SJC - LAX connectivity (while offering SJC-EWR/IAH/DEN/ORD flights) and not serving OAK is not a major source of UA's woes, no matter how much people on here like to claim.

channa

Who said major? It's a hole in their map. UA is not a good carrier within the West Coast if you are in the Bay Area but not near SFO.

jasondc

Oh well - cant be everything to everybody.

EWR764

The SEA-based UAX operation came off contract during bankruptcy, and remained under the UA code, but operating at-risk by SkyWest. As the EM2 fleet was drawn down, the SEA (and PDX) OO flying went away and United made no attempt to bring that flying back on-contract with CRJs or other equipment.

This, among other things, suggests to me that SEA was considered non-core to United long before Continental and Smisek came into the fold. Not to excuse any of the missteps made by that management team (there were many) but I'm not sure SEA is one of them. I'm also convinced that the cut of SEA-NRT was a backroom quid-pro-quo with DL in exchange for their termination of SFO-NRT.

fly18725

Every airline has holes. Despite serving all 3 Bay Area airports, AA and Delta serve far passengers in California and on the West Coast than Southwest or United.

United might not win for you or the thousands (or millions) of people that will only fly an airline that serves OAK or flies SJC-LAX. And that's fine: there are at least four other airlines that meet those requirements.

United does well on the West Coast and can certainly do better. I think it is frustrating for some FlyerTalkers who come to the United MileagePlus forum, and read a thread titled, "Winning the West Coast," only to see a pattern of posts with repeating themes such as (and I paraphrase without reference to or insinuations regarding any individual poster): "United sucks for everyone because it doesn't serve the airport/route I want," or "United is a horrible airline to fly because their PRASM trend line is at the wrong angle," or, "I don't fly United but I like to criticize them because it helps my DAL investment."

I will admit that my decision to define "Winning the West Coast" as having a larger market share on the West Coast may not align with others. What's frustrating is that I've yet to see a better articulation of what this means.

halls120

When did they re-start IAD-SJC???? Talk about getting your facts straight.

Given that I used to fly out of OAK all the time, both to DEN-IAD and to/from LAX, I care.

Kacee

Okay, talk about "winning the west," I needed to book a RT to LAX around new year's . . . UA, DL, and VX were all $130-$240 in Y one-way from either SFO or OAK. WN? $57 out $69 back. Much as I hate flying them, it's . . . WN FTW!

rmadisonwi

Perhaps you win, but the airline doesn't when they're charging $60 fares.

chrisl137

And once the cheap WannaGetAway fares are gone on WN, JetSuiteX starts to be competitive with them and everybody else on price, plus they give potentially more convenience at whatever price.

Kacee

Sure they do. While I don't much like flying them, WN has been an extraordinarily successful airline for decades. They are quite savvy at pricing their fares in a way that maximizes long term profits. If they're selling fares for $57, it's because they think that's a good business move that will benefit them in the long term. Right now, they're making a big play for intra-California trafffic, and it seems the competition has blinked.

spin88

I think it is important to draw a distinction between SJC and OAK. SJC is surrounded by major corporate employers, and there is absolutely no functional public transportation to SFO. If you work at say Apple, and you need to get to SFO, it would be 40 minutes, and it could be two hours - all depending on traffic. This is why SJC is now seeing NRT and LHR service, and has just added PVG and PEK service (both on Chinese carriers).

OTOH there are few large corporate employers closer to OAK vs. SFO or SJC, and the areas around OAK are served by BART, which goes to SFO. There are certainly very wealthy residential areas closer to OAK, but many of these folks work in the City and for personal trips can at off times SFO is not so hard to get to. And those who care about fares can always take BART to SFO.

OAK's draw has been that it has gate availability and has no ATC issues and it also is (or was, my 411 is a few years old at this point) much cheaper to operate at as the gate/landing fees are much lower.

United pulling out of OAK was not IMHO such a big deal, but pulling out from SJC (which they are now sort of back into) was a mistake as traffic got worse on the peninsula.

This said, I think UA's declining position on the West Coast (where it used to be the dominant carrier) has less to do with giving up on SJC and OAK, and more to do with cutting down LAX, and service to/from SEA/PDX/PHX as well as getting lapped at SAN and SMF and SNA.

United was pre-Smisik the largest carrier at LAX, and had a chance to build upon that foundation. Now UA is #3 at LAX, and both AA and DL offer vastly more service, and I think that has not just weakened LAX but the entire west coast network.

jasondc

Interesting points and perspectives. Again, my feeling is that it all comes down to where the employee actually lives. And where they're flying to. Sure, Apple's headquarters might physically be closer to SJC, but many employees live in the city of San Francisco. Many live on the Peninsula and they can easily get to/ from SFO or SJC. Many if not all many times will leave from their home to the airport for their business trips. Even though their office might be closer to SJC, they still fly from SFO. Of course, that argument applies the other way as well. But the point is that just because whatever company's office may be closer physically to SJC does not automatcially mean that somebody will go to SJC. I know scores of people who live in the city of San Francisco, work in various Silicon Valley companies (Apple, Google, Facebook, etc) but will always fly from SFO - it's closer to their homes. That's anecdotal for sure, but it does point out a nuance in the thinking.
OAK is interesting. When there are nonstops from there - say regional flights to the Basin or up to Seattle, ore even to Hawaii, it makes sense to fly from there if there is an option. And there are. Should UA have a presence? TBD. They dont, but neither does AA, and DL has a small one. For long haul flights (east coast, Europe, Asia), i think many people still find the nonstop options at SFO (be they on UA, or whoever) compelling. My aunt lives in Kensington and flies monthly to New York for work - she flies UA to EWR every time. But when she goes to San Diego to see her daughter, Southwest from OAK.
United was never this dominant player at SEA. I took a look at some of their old timetables on departedflights.com and never saw this mammoth operation, going back to the 70s. They had a handful of flights to their biggest markets (LAX, SFO, Chicago, Vancouver, Portland), and one-offs to a few random cities that were the long - ago route awards from a deregulated era that make no sense now (once a day to Reno? Kansas City? ) but they never topped 40 flights a day. Hardly commanding. Perhaps they'll put more resources for a SEA-LAX flight, but htat's about it. They mythic glory days of UA dominance in SEA are just that - a myth. Similar in PDX.
Whether UA wants to wade back into the bloodbath that is LAX now is highly subjective. But they do serve a lot, but not all markets, and can and do work for many people, domesticlly and internationally. Will they be able to serve everybody? No. But I dont think that's their intent. Nor do I think they're trying to "win the west", for whatever that means.

prestonh

It is obvious you do not know much of SEA,may not have even been there. UA had 100 daily flights in SEA prior to the Smisek 'Shrink to compete' drawdown. DL basically took over the vacuum and the international growth that has reigned in SEA in the last 15 years.

prestonh

I have looked at these over time and this table reflects UA's ongoing ranking relative to carriers +/- WRT to operating margin post merger. The excuses are always 'yes we have high and growing CASM but will always lead with PRASM' but the PRASM growth never comes but there is creeping CASM growth nearly every quarter +/- market fuel fluctuations. For stage length adjustments the picture looks WORSE for UA, particularly against AA and most of the international carriers. But again, what is important is margin. The real importance here is that UA makes operating cash on ancillary fees (i.e. nickle/diming) so their very business existence hinges on you coughing up the change and baggage fees in spite of the carrier. They are off the chart in that regard. It is circle the drain time and reflects inept ability to control PRASM, particulalry by abandoning the west.