laxmillenial

Yep. 90% of people don't know what carrier is better / the difference in economy seats, etc. They care about one thing, price.

spin88

I think you do a good job of explaining why flight loads NRT/HND-BKK or ICN-BKK tell us little about what the demand would be for SFO-BKK. Lots of middle market manufacturing by Asian companies is done around BKK, and it is also a major tourist destination, and some of both of those groups will pay a premium to fly in J/F. However, there is a big difference in the price spread needed to support a flight of 2500 miles vs one that is 7918 miles. The Asian airlines can fill a plane in Y on a 2500 mile flight, and make it profitable, they don't need high priced J tickets. A ULR flight does.

And there is no way that what UA would get from mileage tickets being redeemed is anything like what they would get in discounted J. Were there to be a flight like this, I would expect J would be $7-8K RT (if not more). UA would then fill J with discounted corporate tickets selling for around $4K each. A reward ticket would be arround 180K miles, which UA books at slightly less than 1c/mile. But the actual redemption purchase paid by other *A carriers is less than that. The reality is that UA gets at best a book credit of less than $1800 (off the MP owing balance), or they get an offset for mileage used on other *A carriers that is also worth less than $1800. No way you run a ULR flight - which burns lots of cash - so as to burn off the book value of outstanding MP liability.

I agree that UA would also have to wonder (ex-BKK anyway) about what would happen when TG adds a flight with its much better J on the A359 to either SEA/SFO/LAX. If UA ends up having to share the traffic, the business case melts away. On a side note, it would also be interesting what TG would do about connections in the US. Do they use UA (which rules out SEA as the gateway) or are they like SQ and go with another carrier?

But, but, but. SIN does not need to carry any cargo, and does not. Even then they need to block seats at times in the winter. I would assume any airline flying ex-BKK (or SGN, KUL, etc) to the US would want to carry air cargo. The B789 is weight restricted westbound, which is the direction that cargo demand would exist. If the B789 could fly from these South East Asian cities to SFO/LAX with a full load of cargo and passangers, the routes would likely exist, but they can't.

drewguy

While I understand the desirability to some pax, that seems about like having PVG and HGH flights. CAN would be a more sensible route if they're going to create another to the Pearl River delta

sincx

I'm going to toss my hat in the ring and hope for a LAX-HKG that offers a slightly earlier arrival time into HKG and an evening return from HKG back to the US. Something like:

LAX 1100 - HKG 1630
HKG 2130 - LAX 1930

The times will work great for O&D and be acceptable for west coast and Denver connections, and allow people to arrive in HK in time for dinner, and leave HK after a full day of work.

If you put a 789 on this, airplane utilization will complement the LAX-SYD route.

EWR764

But, but, but? How about if, if, if? Lots of speculation and assumption here.

How do you known SIN does not carry any cargo? Do you know what the weight restrictions are? Are you speculating or is this based on actual knowledge? How much is a "full load of cargo"? Do you mean bulked-out? Why would the cargo demand exist westbound but not eastbound? How do you know UA wouldn't be able to carry cargo ex-SGN, KUL, BKK, etc.?

Local carriers in BKK and SGN have been precluded from launching nonstop service to the USA not because of lack of capable equipment (myth), but because both countries remain classified as Category 2 by the FAA's International Air Safety Audit (IASA) program. Absent a Category 1 rating (which is expected this year, but not official), local carriers are forbidden from launching new nonstop service to the United States.

My guess is one of those markets is coming, either SFO-BKK or LAX-SGN. Maybe both.

CALMSP

you can still carry cargo, however, you would be looking at smaller allocations rather than multiple pallet shipments. Years ago, the HKG-EWR flight couldn't carry much, but always had a dedicated LD3 container that was always a go. Just about the only time I saw cargo move prior to passengers.

Boraxo

Exactly. SFO-MNL makes a lot of sense because there is good business demand due to many offshore call centers and other work that is done here for US companies. Also the major competition is Philippine Air which many of us refuse to fly (of course we want *A miles!!) Plus many many California residents have Philippine ancestry and fly back often (and vice versa for the relatives). So would be easy to fill economy and C.

SFO-BKK makes no sense - mostly leisure route and no doubt the reason that UA dumped the connections from NRT, etc. years ago. No reason for this route to come back ever.

I continue to believe there are good opportunities for SFO/LAX nonstops to Europe, but UA does not seem incentivized to take on LH/OS/LX routes due to codeshare, revenue share whatever so that limits the possibilities to OW and Skyteam territory. Really the way to do it (and the way it has traditionally been done) is to start seasonal summer service and see how it goes before going year round. And that ship has already sailed for 2018.

flyerbaby19

I heard it's SFO ZRH

minhaoxue

UA already announced a flight between SFO and Zurich starting in June.

WineCountryUA

Last September -- More Summer 2018 Seasonal: EWR-KEF/OPO; IAD-EDI; SFO-ZRH

mr8

What about a SFO-GUM or LAX-GUM that could feed into their MNL flights and other Asian destinations?

AlreadyThere

I always wondered why they couldn't fill a plane at least a few days a week SFO-GUM, hub to mini-hub. That would bypass busy HNL and also feed MNL without having to dedicate a plane solely to the Philippine market. It would slash the time needed to get to the area.

Of course, United is leaving a piece of the north Pacific by dropping Cape Air as a United Express carrier.

pushmyredbutton

I doubt it's MNL considering the recent capacity cuts from GUM.

My money would be on a destination not currently served by anyone else that gives UA ample time to build up a route presence. SFO/LAX-BKK/SGN fit that bill nicely. Provided UA could work out some codeshares with TG, I see BKK being a clear winner all-around as it would shift some intra-asia traffic away from NRT.

PenaltyBox

Instead of a new destination why not bolster their position at an existing destination by broadening their coverage by adding US links? Based on past observations it appears that TLV has performed better than expected from each US market served to date. EWR has been up-gauged while SFO has seen a frequency increase in addition to up-gauging. As a casual observer it seems like TLV (or any non-Asia market) sees a much higher sustained fare adjusted for mileage.

Just as AA has pretty much saturated the US-GRU market, UA could "flood the zone" to TLV and make any future entry by a US competitor much tougher or better yet, less likely. Additionally, by adding service to an existing city, you eliminate the start-up costs of a new station or the top-heavy labor costs of staffing a station for a single flight.

UA_Flyer