Kacee

Or you spread your short-haul business around among the carriers (especially WN) who have a better point-to-point network within the state, while still giving your long-haul business to UA. I would suspect for most GS, that's still enough business to maintain GS status.

The place where this model falls apart for UA (ceding the short-haul) is status levels below GS, where the handcuffs have become very very loose due to constant devaluation of benefits.

jasondc

This is really amusing. Some poster decided that UA should "win" the west coast and all of a sudden there's this huge huge thread about how awful United is because they're not doing enough to "win" the west coast according to a few peoples' random definitions of what "winning" the west coast means.
1) Where did UA ever say they wanted to "win" the west coast? This seems like a total invention by people in this thread
2) Who cares? UA only has so many resources and they have decided to focus them on SFO. Will they be able to serve every person and every potential customer? No. They know that and they dont care. Delta shut down two/three hubs and has the aircraft necessary to do what they are doing. Time will tell if they made the right choice. UA hasnt shut down and had as many hubs close as Delta, and therefore hasnt had as many airplanes to find homes for. Good for Delta that they can connect people from SJC through LAX to TUS. That's splending.
3) UA has a massively important beachhead in SFO and competitive service out of LAX to many important destinations. They cant be everything to everybody; they are choosing to put their resources where they think they can maximize their usefulness and ability to generate profits. That's a common thing amongst players in most other industries. I dont see why everybody is getting so upset about that. Will it work"? Tbd. But they're in the best markets (SFO) in a meaningful way. Good for them.
4) If united doesnt work for you, that's fine, there are other players too.

williambruno1975

also says a lot of someone’s Time value of money when a minimum 3:53 block time (and more typically 5hr) of SJC LAX TUS and a chance of misconnect is better than driving an extra few miles to SFO for the 2hr nonstop.

and it’s funny people kept mentioning WN when OAK TUS nonstop is only listed as seasonal, and the only other nonstop option is alaska SJC TUS once a day.

so now we have a debate on how the frequency leader from the most preferred Bay Area Airport is not offering the right service to TUS.

channa

LOL. Can be up to 90 minutes drive time SJC-SFO in traffic. And that assumes UA's 2 daily flights even work for you.

williambruno1975

i get it ... the 5 hour block times and the chance of misconnect is guaranteed to work for you but 2 nonstops is no guarantee at all. Got it.

ps I checked connections via Denver for fun. It blocks at roughly 5:15, barely longer than DL via LAX. And there are 5x daily UA DEN-TUS for anyone who needs those if the nonstops or 1-stop via LAX doesn’t work.

SJC ORD LDR

It can be more than 90 minutes these days. Traffic can be horrible. That's why 95% of the time I fly from SJC. I can get there without using any freeway.

channa

Which is worse, a chance of misconnect or chance of missing your flight altogether in unpredictable traffic?

williambruno1975

the same discussion can be flipped backwards when talking about SEA vs PAE. That’s part of “winning West Coast” too unless somehow “West Coast” is defined by just east bay and South Bay of SF area.

and speaking of “winning the West Coast” and how up and down the coast is so crucial, where is DL on SNA-Bay Area ? you can make the exact same traffic arguments about SNA vs LAX.

ahhh yes how can I forget the drive from your place to SJC is guaranteed to be zero traffic jam zero accidents every hour every day

the only thing I need too know is that Apple’s new HQ is super close to SJC but they have a major contract with UA, so obviously the traffic condition is bothering the world’s biggest market cap public corporation a lot less than it is bothering some individuals.

prestonh

Let's just do a case study. SEA-LAX. Smisek dropped it to an RJ, it has never recovered. Still down to 2X RJ. 29 flights from SEA to the 2nd largest metro in the US, UA has 2 of them on an RJ. AA has 4 flights (mix of mainline and RJ) . DL has 9 flights, all mainline. AS/Vx are the balance YVR and PDX are similar.

fly18725

Actually, I provided historical data that's shown how people have flown.

So, you define "Winning in the West" as offering a comprehensive network out of SJC. That's a myopic definition that ignores the fact that most people in the west - or the Bay Area - don't live near or fly out of SJC. It's also strange that you choose to promote Delta, yet Delta is less than half the size of Alaska out of SJC and less than 20% the size of Southwest. If SJC is so important to "winning" wouldn't you pick an airline that offers more flights, seats, and destinations?

In other news, if an airline offers you a flight at the right time and the right price, you will buy it.

channa

Absolutely. There are holes for every carrier. UA has some bigger ones in the East Bay and South Bay because of their lack of service.

I'm not sure what you're not comprehending here. If someone is close to SJC but far from SFO, the likelihood of having trouble getting there is lesser with the closer destination.

Big corporations have a lot of contracts. They're also not exactly going to make high value employees drive out of their way if a better/more convenient flight exists out of a closer airport.


You provided the biggest airports by volume in California, not how people fly.

AS's issue is more limited connectivity on the other end, though they mitigate some of that with their point-to-point flying and codesharing with AA. DL is a more comprehensive network carrier (comparable in size to UA, hence the comparison). SJC is just an example of UA's weakness in the West, it's not the definition of West. There are other examples -- OAK which UA does not serve is another obvious one.

The UA strategy of pulling people from the region to fly out of their hub, in an increased traffic environment, and in light of new competitors bringing more options, is no longer a slam dunk like it used to be. You can even attribute some of the phenomenon to the mileage program deterioration (e.g., sit in traffic for 60-90 minutes to catch UA and get very few difficult-to-use miles for it, or just fly whomever is most convenient?).

WineCountryUA

Moderator Note

Just a reminder that on FT we discuss the issues, not the posters. Some recent posts are perilously close to crossing the boundary. Our circumstances are all different, and our opinions can differ -- that does not make one's opinion better or worse than other's opinion. Belittling is not an acceptable approach, let's respect all opinions.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

Kacee

Richard Branson should be sending Smisek Christmas cards for the rest of his life. Not sure VX would have made it if UA hadn't botched things so badly during his tenure.

spin88

Between buying DL in 2013 and VX a few months after the IPO, I should send Jeff a x-mas card... from the beach house in Hawaii ;0

jasondc

VX didn't "make it". They never made money, they survived luckily because of reducing oil prices in 2014, and then they were sold when they were barely treading water. VX might have had 2 daily flights in LAX - SEA. Meanwhile, in SFO, UA matched them add for add as they tried to grow and complicated their efforts to become a viable carrier in the long term. They sold out to AS at their prime, and even then AS really just bought them for their gates and planes at some big airports, not because they were a particularly profitable entity.

I know lots of people who were very high up in the VX organization who conveyed over the years that there were many times when they almost went out of business. T/hey did not anticipate united's actions in SFO and their efforts to defend their turf, which they did. They predicated a big portion of their business plan on the notion that UA would pull back from SFO. They didn't, they doubled down, and VX went away eventually.


1) UA never made some grandiose claim to "win the west". At most, they have, through their actions, decided to put their limited resources where they feel they'll get the biggest return. That's largely SFO and to a lesser extent LAX. That's where there local customers are, that's where visiting tourists and business people want to go.

2) Do people really think that not having an SJC - LAX presence is going to kill United? That if people are going to be flying to Asia or Europe that they just won't take a nonstop from SFO? That SJC - LAX on DL will mortally wound UA? While some people will certainly do a connection, connections are largely motivated by price, especially if a nonstop nearby is available.

3) Keep in mind that while Apple or google or whoever might have offices that are somewhat close to SJC, many of their employees live on the peninsula or in the city of SF, and for many of them going to SFO or SJC is dependent on where they live, not necessarily where they go to for work. Most people for their business trips leave from their home. Apple/Google/Facebook employees who live in the City of SF or much of the peninsula will normally find it more convenient to fly to /from SFO due to where they live. without regards to where their offices are. Oh and those corporate contracts are usually pretty iron-clad,. United flies nonstop from SFO to CTU which is a huge Apple route. Those employees are on the nonstop from sFO, not taking some DL connection down to LAX then transiting to somewhere else in China before arriving in Chengdu, regardless of where they live in the Bay Area. Will UA resume SJC or OAK to LAX? anything is possible. Perhaps if the leakage people claim here TRULY is so dire maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Time will tell.

As an anecdote I was on SFO- DCA United yesterday. The guy I sat next to lived south of SJC and travels at least weekly for work; but he said that when he goes to DC, NYC, Chicago he always flies UA from SFO, just for the miles and for the abundance of nonstop. For trips down to LA he will take whoever is cheapest from SJC. So perhaps there's room there. But an anecdote that demonstrates the power of the offering at SFO.

4)To the poster who said that UA miles are worthless, have you checked on the other forms? People universally deride delta sky pesos and have been extremely upset with AA availability lately. UA tends to have the best availability and the best network of partners for redemptions. I get tremendous value from those miles.

Anyway, just my few cents. UA, like any carrier, has limited resources, and they have to decide how to allocate them. Just like any other company. Will they be all things to al people? Probably not. But no company can be. In any industry. Instead, they alocate their resources to the biggest opportunity and biggest strength. On the west coast, that's SF, which they dominate like no other airline does any other city on the west coast. Something that I'm sure DL or AA would love to do.