New UA Destinations coming soon Rumors
Apr 18, 2018, 7:48 am
#46
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: None - previously UA
Posts: 4,864
Apr 18, 2018, 7:59 am
#47
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: UA-1K MM, AA-Gold, DL-Silver, AS-MVP
Posts: 2,508
I think you need to count the seats. I can't remember the numbers, but l think last year was the only exception with something like a 1% increase in
Asian capacity (which they somehow turned into an 5% decrease in traffic.) It's not just the number of routes but there has been significant downguaging and big cuts in frequencies on all the Japan routes.
Asian capacity (which they somehow turned into an 5% decrease in traffic.) It's not just the number of routes but there has been significant downguaging and big cuts in frequencies on all the Japan routes.
Apr 18, 2018, 8:12 am
#48
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Capacity in the industry is measured by ASM, which obviously is impacted on an outsize basis by longhauls with large airplanes. UA has added a number of these, but they are capacity increases nonetheless.
What are the Japan frequency cuts? GUM is really its own entity, affected by exogenous factors, and the intra-Asia flying has mostly been replaced by nonstops.
As for Japan, yes GUM is a separate deal.... in fact I think UA just announced a bunch of new flights from JPN to GUM. I was really referring to elimination/frequency reduction from ORD, JFK, SEA, IAH etc.
Also UA used to be pretty competitive in Japan<>Asia O&D (and NW was super-competitive) in both the leisure and business markets. The provincial hicks who took over in ORD (and ATL) just threw that away. Still a great market there but it would take years to rebuild.
.
Last edited by 5khours; Apr 18, 2018 at 8:18 am
Apr 18, 2018, 8:12 am
#49
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
It's all low yield traffic. Emirates flods the market with cheap capacity. There's a reason most of their A380s used to Bangkok are the variants without a First class cabin but with over 600 seats (most of them Y). When you are selling $600 roundtrips from Europe to Bangkok via Dubai, it's a volume game. Most of the European carriers do fly to Bangkok, but several only seasonally. It's a low yield, high volume market. Cheap fares. Not something United really needs to be in.
Apr 18, 2018, 8:16 am
#50
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
United and Delta both were only in the Japan - Southeast Asia market as a remnant of long-ago route networks that were created way before the advent of airplanes that could profitably fly USA - China (passing Japan) nonstop, let alone USA - points in Southeast Asia nonstop. Those flights all bled money from day 1, and the airlines couldnt wait to get rid of them. They mostly filled them up with transfer traffic from the US, along with consolidator traffic at dirt cheap prices from Japan. In the markets that had viable fares and the right airplane for nonstop US services (China, Hong Kong, Singapore), they kept. IN the markets such as BKK with low yields and limited paid business demand, they worked with their partners to feed the traffic over Japan or other Asian hubs. NOt a dumb hick move.
Not to put too fine an point on it but while ASMs have been going up by 1 or 2% a year stage length has been going up probably double that so you're getting a 1 or 2% annual decrease in seats. Not trying to argue about how to measure capacity but any way you cut it UA is getting killed in Asia. Flattish (for the sake or argument) capacity in a rapidly growing market, declining traffic, declining revenue. IMHO, they can only succeed in an opportunistic manner (early delivery of a lot of long range aircraft, certification delays for TG, VN, GA, etc.) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see non-stops to SGN and BKK, I just think it will be a challenge for UA to stay competitive in these markets.
As for Japan, yes GUM is a separate deal.... in fact I think UA just announced a bunch of new flights from JPN to GUM. I was really referring to elimination/frequency reduction from ORD, JFK, SEA etc.
Also UA used to be pretty competitive in Japan<>Asia O&D (and NW was super-competitive) in both the leisure and business markets. The provincial hicks who took over in ORD (and ATL) just threw that away. Still a great market there but it would take years to rebuild.
.
As for Japan, yes GUM is a separate deal.... in fact I think UA just announced a bunch of new flights from JPN to GUM. I was really referring to elimination/frequency reduction from ORD, JFK, SEA etc.
Also UA used to be pretty competitive in Japan<>Asia O&D (and NW was super-competitive) in both the leisure and business markets. The provincial hicks who took over in ORD (and ATL) just threw that away. Still a great market there but it would take years to rebuild.
.
Apr 18, 2018, 8:20 am
#51
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
What on earth are you talking about? United flies LAX/SFO - SIN. They compete with Singapore Airlines. They fly LAX/SFO-SYD, where they compete with Qantas. They fly LAX/SFO-LHR, where they compete vigorously with BA, AA, VS. They fly SFO- CDG, where they compete with AF. So your assertion really is baseless and makes no sense.
Not going to happen. For all the complaints here, UA management isn't stupid. They stick to routes where they don't have to compete -- preferably where they're shielded from competition by the U.S. govt.
No way they're going to start routes where they have to compete with airlines (Singapore, Cathay, Thai, et al) that actually offer great service (vs. lame service from crusty union hacks). That's why they dropped service from HKG and NRT to BKK, SGN, and SIN.
No way they're going to start routes where they have to compete with airlines (Singapore, Cathay, Thai, et al) that actually offer great service (vs. lame service from crusty union hacks). That's why they dropped service from HKG and NRT to BKK, SGN, and SIN.
Apr 18, 2018, 8:24 am
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,453
It's all low yield traffic. Emirates flods the market with cheap capacity. There's a reason most of their A380s used to Bangkok are the variants without a First class cabin but with over 600 seats (most of them Y). When you are selling $600 roundtrips from Europe to Bangkok via Dubai, it's a volume game. Most of the European carriers do fly to Bangkok, but several only seasonally. It's a low yield, high volume market. Cheap fares. Not something United really needs to be in.
These continued assertions about "low yield" lack any back-up whatsoever. So color me skeptical
And $600 Y fares tell us nothing about yields. You can buy SFO-HKG on UA right now for under $600. Does that make Hong Kong a low yield market?
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 18, 2018 at 1:39 pm Reason: overly personal comments removed
Apr 18, 2018, 8:29 am
#53
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
United and Delta both were only in the Japan - Southeast Asia market as a remnant of long-ago route networks that were created way before the advent of airplanes that could profitably fly USA - China (passing Japan) nonstop, let alone USA - points in Southeast Asia nonstop. Those flights all bled money from day 1, and the airlines couldnt wait to get rid of them. They mostly filled them up with transfer traffic from the US, along with consolidator traffic at dirt cheap prices from Japan. In the markets that had viable fares and the right airplane for nonstop US services (China, Hong Kong, Singapore), they kept. IN the markets such as BKK with low yields and limited paid business demand, they worked with their partners to feed the traffic over Japan or other Asian hubs. NOt a dumb hick move.
Apr 18, 2018, 8:48 am
#54
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,752
nothing in the slides for today’s earnings call. i wouldn’t expect a route announcement in the call itself (as these have become important for the social media teams to roll out), but no mention of “new routes TBA” is disappointing.
we’ve had many rumor threads like this before; i’d still pick LAX-SGN, LAX-TLV and SFO-BLR.
SFO-BLR would be technically challenging because of the himalayas, but UA has shown a willingness to push the envelope with the 789.
we’ve had many rumor threads like this before; i’d still pick LAX-SGN, LAX-TLV and SFO-BLR.
SFO-BLR would be technically challenging because of the himalayas, but UA has shown a willingness to push the envelope with the 789.
Apr 18, 2018, 9:10 am
#55
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
Hong kong gets a lot of paid J traffic from the US. BKK not so much.
I've worked in network planning and pricing for a few airlines that have a presence in Bangkok and have intimate knowledge of the pricing in those markets.
{T}ake a look in detail at the European carriers in the market. Most have drastically reduced their service to Bangkok over the years. Sure, they keep a presence, but most such as AF dont even fly year round. SK has left the market entirely. Emirates flies with 615 seat 380s that do not have a first class product - it's all Y transfer traffic from Europe.
United and Delta both were in the market and have experienced it as US operators. The fact is, to operate from the US to Bangkok you either have to stop in Asia, dedicating a lot of aircraft time, or have a plane such as the 787 that can do it nonstop. The same reality is NOT there for the European carriers as they can fly nonstop. Both options require high average fares and a lot of paid J traffic to make it successful. There's a reason United ditched BKK but keeps SIN, there's a reason that Delta, despite not flying SIN nonstop - keeps it. There's a reason that both, as US carriers, ditched BKK. Will it return? Who knows. But that doesnt change the fact that it's a market that, served from the US, requires a lot of aircraft time, which requires high fares to support it. TBD.
I've worked in network planning and pricing for a few airlines that have a presence in Bangkok and have intimate knowledge of the pricing in those markets.
{T}ake a look in detail at the European carriers in the market. Most have drastically reduced their service to Bangkok over the years. Sure, they keep a presence, but most such as AF dont even fly year round. SK has left the market entirely. Emirates flies with 615 seat 380s that do not have a first class product - it's all Y transfer traffic from Europe.
United and Delta both were in the market and have experienced it as US operators. The fact is, to operate from the US to Bangkok you either have to stop in Asia, dedicating a lot of aircraft time, or have a plane such as the 787 that can do it nonstop. The same reality is NOT there for the European carriers as they can fly nonstop. Both options require high average fares and a lot of paid J traffic to make it successful. There's a reason United ditched BKK but keeps SIN, there's a reason that Delta, despite not flying SIN nonstop - keeps it. There's a reason that both, as US carriers, ditched BKK. Will it return? Who knows. But that doesnt change the fact that it's a market that, served from the US, requires a lot of aircraft time, which requires high fares to support it. TBD.
Right. Because UA knows better than virtually every other major carrier in the world that can reach BKK from its hub.
These continued assertions about "low yield" lack any back-up whatsoever. So color me skeptical
And $600 Y fares tell us nothing about yields. You can buy SFO-HKG on UA right now for under $600. Does that make Hong Kong a low yield market?
These continued assertions about "low yield" lack any back-up whatsoever. So color me skeptical
And $600 Y fares tell us nothing about yields. You can buy SFO-HKG on UA right now for under $600. Does that make Hong Kong a low yield market?
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 18, 2018 at 1:39 pm Reason: overly personal comments deleted
Apr 18, 2018, 9:28 am
#56
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SoCal (ONT), PVD/BOS, JAX, RSW
Programs: AA/US PlatPro & 1.05MM, DL Plat (challenge), UA dirt
Posts: 3,189
I prefer the HKG-CEB on CX over the NRT-MNL on NH as CX has a lie-flat C A332 on the route.
ETA: For C prices, SQ is nearly on par with UA...
Apr 18, 2018, 9:40 am
#57
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Programs: UA-Plat, UA-MM, Hertz PC, HH, APEC ABTC
Posts: 235
It's all low yield traffic. Emirates flods the market with cheap capacity. There's a reason most of their A380s used to Bangkok are the variants without a First class cabin but with over 600 seats (most of them Y). When you are selling $600 roundtrips from Europe to Bangkok via Dubai, it's a volume game. Most of the European carriers do fly to Bangkok, but several only seasonally. It's a low yield, high volume market. Cheap fares. Not something United really needs to be in.
Apr 18, 2018, 9:55 am
#58
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Hong kong gets a lot of paid J traffic from the US. BKK not so much.
And I'm not some anonymous dude, I've worked in network planning and pricing for a few airlines that have a presence in Bangkok and have intimate knowledge of the pricing in those markets.
{T}ake a look in detail at the European carriers in the market. Most have drastically reduced their service to Bangkok over the years. Sure, they keep a presence, but most such as AF dont even fly year round. SK has left the market entirely. Emirates flies with 615 seat 380s that do not have a first class product - it's all Y transfer traffic from Europe.
United and Delta both were in the market and have experienced it as US operators. The fact is, to operate from the US to Bangkok you either have to stop in Asia, dedicating a lot of aircraft time, or have a plane such as the 787 that can do it nonstop. The same reality is NOT there for the European carriers as they can fly nonstop. Both options require high average fares and a lot of paid J traffic to make it successful. There's a reason United ditched BKK but keeps SIN, there's a reason that Delta, despite not flying SIN nonstop - keeps it. There's a reason that both, as US carriers, ditched BKK. Will it return? Who knows. But that doesnt change the fact that it's a market that, served from the US, requires a lot of aircraft time, which requires high fares to support it. TBD.
And I'm not some anonymous dude, I've worked in network planning and pricing for a few airlines that have a presence in Bangkok and have intimate knowledge of the pricing in those markets.
{T}ake a look in detail at the European carriers in the market. Most have drastically reduced their service to Bangkok over the years. Sure, they keep a presence, but most such as AF dont even fly year round. SK has left the market entirely. Emirates flies with 615 seat 380s that do not have a first class product - it's all Y transfer traffic from Europe.
United and Delta both were in the market and have experienced it as US operators. The fact is, to operate from the US to Bangkok you either have to stop in Asia, dedicating a lot of aircraft time, or have a plane such as the 787 that can do it nonstop. The same reality is NOT there for the European carriers as they can fly nonstop. Both options require high average fares and a lot of paid J traffic to make it successful. There's a reason United ditched BKK but keeps SIN, there's a reason that Delta, despite not flying SIN nonstop - keeps it. There's a reason that both, as US carriers, ditched BKK. Will it return? Who knows. But that doesnt change the fact that it's a market that, served from the US, requires a lot of aircraft time, which requires high fares to support it. TBD.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm Reason: quote updated to reflect Moderator edit; discuss the issues, not the poster(s)
Apr 18, 2018, 9:57 am
#59
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Mlife NOIR
Posts: 320
United needs to get a little creative. I don’t think that even they realized how wildly successful SFO-SIN would be. And I think SFO-BOM or SFO-DEL could prove just as popular.
While there are already many ways to get to India from the Bay Area right now, they are still a slog. I know so many people in Silicon Valley who fly paid J to India several times a year for work.
Most people on corporate contracts will end up flying LH via FRA which is a pain or on UA via EWR (also a pain). Sometimes, when that flight is full, we’ll do Swiss which has a terrible 7 hour connection on the way back.
The SFO-DEL AI flight is apparently doing very well, but I haven’t met a single person from the Bay Area who has flown it. It seems to be more popular with India-based flyers visiting the Bay Area. Moreover, while the ME3 are popular with Indian flyers coming to the west coast (especially those flying Y or F), I know very few SF-based paid J travelers who would consider them because of their poor mileage earnings compared to MileagePlus. (One trip to India in J usually means 40k PQM and 40,000+ award miles for a 1K.)
Its really time that United consider a SFO to India flight. It would save a lot of time and I’m sure they could time it well to maximize sleep (similar to their Singapore flights). Also, I’d take a 787 any day over the terribly outdated 777-200 CO and 757-200 you get when flying through Newark.
While there are already many ways to get to India from the Bay Area right now, they are still a slog. I know so many people in Silicon Valley who fly paid J to India several times a year for work.
Most people on corporate contracts will end up flying LH via FRA which is a pain or on UA via EWR (also a pain). Sometimes, when that flight is full, we’ll do Swiss which has a terrible 7 hour connection on the way back.
The SFO-DEL AI flight is apparently doing very well, but I haven’t met a single person from the Bay Area who has flown it. It seems to be more popular with India-based flyers visiting the Bay Area. Moreover, while the ME3 are popular with Indian flyers coming to the west coast (especially those flying Y or F), I know very few SF-based paid J travelers who would consider them because of their poor mileage earnings compared to MileagePlus. (One trip to India in J usually means 40k PQM and 40,000+ award miles for a 1K.)
Its really time that United consider a SFO to India flight. It would save a lot of time and I’m sure they could time it well to maximize sleep (similar to their Singapore flights). Also, I’d take a 787 any day over the terribly outdated 777-200 CO and 757-200 you get when flying through Newark.
If AC can sustain flights to India from both Vancouver and Toronto, UA should be able too.
Apr 18, 2018, 10:03 am
#60
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,453
Yes, exactly. The existence of sub-$600 Y fares says nothing about either paid J cabin demand or overall yields on a given route.
And UA now has an aircraft with the range to handle SFO-BKK.
I really don't see any of the other options frequently mentioned here (SGN, KUL, MNL, or LAX-HKG) as any more likely or appealing. To the contrary, Bangkok is a growing commercial center and the biggest tourist draw in the world.
I really don't see any of the other options frequently mentioned here (SGN, KUL, MNL, or LAX-HKG) as any more likely or appealing. To the contrary, Bangkok is a growing commercial center and the biggest tourist draw in the world.