Winning the West Coast
From the days of Shuttle by United, the company has always had — at least a vision — to be the predominant carrier on the West Coast.
Over the last decade, we’ve seen a dwindling of service out of the outstations and UA opted to focus on the San Francisco hub. LA is beginning to come back. But what’s stopping United from launching more point to point service out of CA cities to other west coast business markets. Continental brought EWR SNA, and I know people that swear by that flight. Why not offer more ex-SNA service, for example. I’m flying more to SJC for work presently out of LAX and United doesn’t even offer an option on that route, which seems bizarre. Virgin/Alaska is gearing up, why not United? |
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
why not United?
|
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
But what’s stopping United from launching more point to point service out of CA cities to other west coast business markets.
|
Originally Posted by escapefromphl
(Post 29069929)
it's impossible to win LAX.
|
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
Why not offer more ex-SNA service, for example.
|
Originally Posted by hoshattack
(Post 29069950)
.... It's that kind of pitiful service that really says "we don't care"
As can no ariline |
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
From the days of Shuttle by United, the company has always had — at least a vision — to be the predominant carrier on the West Coast.
Over the last decade, we’ve seen a dwindling of service out of the outstations and UA opted to focus on the San Francisco hub.... Virgin/Alaska is gearing up, why not United? At this point, the opportunity is long gone. DL has spent a lot of $$$ and has a much stronger brand, and has overtaken UA at LAX, while adding a major presence at SEA. they have also added a lot of extra shuttle flights up and down the west coast, as well as substantially expanded SFO service. AS/VX is also going to make a major play - including at SFO. At this point, DL is the main west coast network carrier, WN has a lot of service, as does AS/VX. Outside of SFO, United is not a go to carrier, and given its poor reputation for service and its generally third rate product, adding more flights would just further depress load factor and PRASM. |
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
(Post 29069975)
Or they can not be everything to everyone
As can no ariline |
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 29069991)
LAX-SEA is a major market, .....
|
West Coast is hyper-competitive. No airline has been able to sustain much momentum in gaining an edge over the others. We here on the FT UA board are well aware of UA's recent cutbacks, but:
AA is #1 at LAX, but it has reduced LAX-SFO to all Eagle, and the frequency is down from hourly to one flight every 1:30. AA has also down-gauged LAX-SYD, LAX-NRT, LAX-JFK... DL has stopped marketing Delta Shuttle on the West Coast, after about a year. LAX-SFO will go all-DL Connection again this winter. SEA-SFO frequencies have been reduced (by 1, so far). DL has also cut LAX-NRT and LAX-LHR. |
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
I’m flying more to SJC for work presently out of LAX and United doesn’t even offer an option on that route, which seems bizarre.
However we have at least seen an increase in flights to SJC recently, with flights to ORD (2 per day) and EWR being added to the existing DEN and IAH flights. I'd love to see SJC-LAX come back, and with it back to only 4 airlines flying it now I'd say it's certainly possible... |
IMO the big hole in California for UA is OAK. DL, AA, AS, B6, BA, and of course WN with a huge operation, are all there.
|
Well here at PDX we've got the daytime non-stop to EWR back. That's progress after the Smisek cuts (thanks Scott).
Now how about bringing PDX-LAX back? We don't need the full Shuttle by United, or the UX Brasilia's to Seattle, Eugene or Medford. But a connecting service to get other UA options to Asia would be good. LAX-MEL would mean nothing to me as it's currently a 2-stop from PDX vs 1-stop on DL/VA and AA/QF. |
Originally Posted by boat9781
(Post 29069918)
From the days of Shuttle by United, the company has always had — at least a vision — to be the predominant carrier on the West Coast.
Over the last decade, we’ve seen a dwindling of service out of the outstations and UA opted to focus on the San Francisco hub. LA is beginning to come back. But what’s stopping United from launching more point to point service out of CA cities to other west coast business markets. Continental brought EWR SNA, and I know people that swear by that flight. Why not offer more ex-SNA service, for example. I’m flying more to SJC for work presently out of LAX and United doesn’t even offer an option on that route, which seems bizarre. Virgin/Alaska is gearing up, why not United?
Originally Posted by hoshattack
(Post 29069950)
Will it ever be a fortress hub like IAH or EWR? No. But I'm continually flabbergasted by the fact that UA only has one or two flights SEA-LAX (and only seasonally mainline at that). It's that kind of pitiful service that really says "we don't care"
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 29069980)
United was the #1 carrier at LAX, #1 at SFO, #1 (or #2 to DL for a while) at PDX, and #2 at SEA. They also had a major presence in secondary markets. the BKR period (2004-2010) and growth by WN lead to an erosion of UA's possition, but when CO's lift was added, UA was c2011 in a position to dominate the West.... instead they went with "changes you will like"
At this point, the opportunity is long gone. DL has spent a lot of $$$ and has a much stronger brand, and has overtaken UA at LAX, while adding a major presence at SEA. they have also added a lot of extra shuttle flights up and down the west coast, as well as substantially expanded SFO service. AS/VX is also going to make a major play - including at SFO. At this point, DL is the main west coast network carrier, WN has a lot of service, as does AS/VX. Outside of SFO, United is not a go to carrier, and given its poor reputation for service and its generally third rate product, adding more flights would just further depress load factor and PRASM. UA hasn't been higher than #3 at PDX at any point in the last 10+ years. DL has never been higher than #3 either in that time frame. They've been trading #3 and #4 for years. DL mainline is only about 20% larger at SFO now than immediately after the NW acquisition, and that's with large expansions at SEA and SFO. In other words, their "growth" at SFO is small and not for the SFO customer. DL is well behind UA in West Coast size. Clearly they are still the main West Coast network carrier and the go-to for SFO. Only AS and WN can also say about a West Coast airport.
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 29069991)
LAX-SEA is a major market, and running one or two RJs (for a while CRJ-200s) was a great way to lose corporate accounts as well as FFers on the west coast. Not running routes like this (or LAX-YVR or LAX-PDX) was a good part of the reason UA is now firmly back in third place ex-LAX.
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 29070098)
IMO the big hole in California for UA is OAK. DL, AA, AS, B6, BA, and of course WN with a huge operation, are all there.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 29069945)
A desire to create profits for shareholders rather than get involved in a massively expensive fight for incremental traffic that already has a strong commitment to a carrier (WN) delivering far more intra-California connectivity than UA could even consider trying to build out without bankrupting the airline.
Being # 1 on the west coast isn't the objective, making a lot of money where people want to fly is where it's at. Just because some guy wants to fly from his home in ONT to work in SEA doesn't mean that UA is gonna fly that route so a pax doesn't need to connect. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:17 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.