Should UA develop new hubs/focus cities?
#91
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
DCA & IAD handle about the same total passengers and IAD has significant more long-haul international (higher revenue generating)
EWR has significantly more passenger traffic than LGA and UA has a reasonable non-hub share at LGA.
One can go around and around if DCA is better than IAD or EWR vs LGA / JFK because it comes down to where you are in those metro regions -- which is most convenient for your personal travel patterns.
For me coming from the west coast (non-stop), the answer is pretty clear for me. But it is different for others.
EWR has significantly more passenger traffic than LGA and UA has a reasonable non-hub share at LGA.
One can go around and around if DCA is better than IAD or EWR vs LGA / JFK because it comes down to where you are in those metro regions -- which is most convenient for your personal travel patterns.
For me coming from the west coast (non-stop), the answer is pretty clear for me. But it is different for others.
#92
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
It isn't that simple, not every American needs to fly to TLV, NAP, e.t.c. Don't get me wrong, UA's international presence is a very very strong asset, but having hubs in DCA and LGA is a unique aadvantage(sorry couldn't help myself) that should not be overlooked either.
AA wouldn't trade MIA for SFO, and DL wouldn't trade DTW for SFO for a whole host of reasons. If DL still had a hub in MEM I could see the argument for why DL would trade hubs, but in today's age each of the US3s hubs are in strategically important areas that serve a robust O&D market.
"real flights to places that matter"......1. This is an entirely subjective statement 2. I have no idea what you mean by that
AA wouldn't trade MIA for SFO, and DL wouldn't trade DTW for SFO for a whole host of reasons. If DL still had a hub in MEM I could see the argument for why DL would trade hubs, but in today's age each of the US3s hubs are in strategically important areas that serve a robust O&D market.
"real flights to places that matter"......1. This is an entirely subjective statement 2. I have no idea what you mean by that
#94
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: YUL
Programs: UA 1K, MR Bonvoy Bonzaiiiii, National EE
Posts: 622
There are few coverage gaps
-- Northwest -- SEA has service from multiple hubs, eastern Washington State, upper Idaho are sparsely populated
-- Southeast -- this is mostly a Floride issue and multiple larger FL cities have multiple hub connections.
One advantage of a deep SE hub would be better Carribean coverage
-- Northwest -- SEA has service from multiple hubs, eastern Washington State, upper Idaho are sparsely populated
-- Southeast -- this is mostly a Floride issue and multiple larger FL cities have multiple hub connections.
One advantage of a deep SE hub would be better Carribean coverage
#95
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,425
It isn't that simple, not every American needs to fly to TLV, NAP, e.t.c. Don't get me wrong, UA's international presence is a very very strong asset, but having hubs in DCA and LGA is a unique aadvantage(sorry couldn't help myself) that should not be overlooked either.
AA wouldn't trade MIA for SFO, and DL wouldn't trade DTW for SFO for a whole host of reasons. If DL still had a hub in MEM I could see the argument for why DL would trade hubs, but in today's age each of the US3s hubs are in strategically important areas that serve a robust O&D market.
AA wouldn't trade MIA for SFO, and DL wouldn't trade DTW for SFO for a whole host of reasons. If DL still had a hub in MEM I could see the argument for why DL would trade hubs, but in today's age each of the US3s hubs are in strategically important areas that serve a robust O&D market.
Outside of the megahubs, which serve a different network purpose, EWR and SFO are “crown jewels” and don’t underestimate what AA/DL would give up to step into United’s shoes at both locations. No other hubs in the country have the same high-value traffic and service mix. DL would drop any of its Pacific gateways (except ATL, to the extent it can be considered such) in less than a heartbeat if UA were actually willing to trade SFO.
MIA *was* in that category and remains of paramount strategic importance to AA, but doesn’t generate the same returns today it did a few years ago .
AA's position in New York is anything but "aadvantageous", and my view is that this management team isn't particularly committed to it, but at the same time, doesn't really know what to do with it. Unloading JFK/LGA slots or gates would undoubtedly further strengthen competitors, and AA doesn't want UA to regain a toehold in the JFK transcons.
#96
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Midwest
Programs: AAdvantage Platinum Pro, UA Premier Platinum, IHG Platinum Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 190
DCA & IAD handle about the same total passengers and IAD has significant more long-haul international (higher revenue generating)
EWR has significantly more passenger traffic than LGA and UA has a reasonable non-hub share at LGA.
One can go around and around if DCA is better than IAD or EWR vs LGA / JFK because it comes down to where you are in those metro regions -- which is most convenient for your personal travel patterns.
For me coming from the west coast (non-stop), the answer is pretty clear for me. But it is different for others.
EWR has significantly more passenger traffic than LGA and UA has a reasonable non-hub share at LGA.
One can go around and around if DCA is better than IAD or EWR vs LGA / JFK because it comes down to where you are in those metro regions -- which is most convenient for your personal travel patterns.
For me coming from the west coast (non-stop), the answer is pretty clear for me. But it is different for others.
AAs RJ-oriented DCA and LGA networks are nice for the respective local markets but I hesitate to consider them hubs in the true sense of the word because very little about those operations are structured to facilitate connections. Im not saying connections arent possible there, but they are far from ideal. The mix of passengers (I would wager) exceeds 80% local as a rule.
Outside of the megahubs, which serve a different network purpose, EWR and SFO are crown jewels and dont underestimate what AA/DL would give up to step into Uniteds shoes at both locations. No other hubs in the country have the same high-value traffic and service mix. DL would drop any of its Pacific gateways (except ATL, to the extent it can be considered such) in less than a heartbeat if UA were actually willing to trade SFO.
MIA *was* in that category and remains of paramount strategic importance to AA, but doesnt generate the same returns today it did a few years ago .
AA's position in New York is anything but "aadvantageous", and my view is that this management team isn't particularly committed to it, but at the same time, doesn't really know what to do with it. Unloading JFK/LGA slots or gates would undoubtedly further strengthen competitors, and AA doesn't want UA to regain a toehold in the JFK transcons.
Outside of the megahubs, which serve a different network purpose, EWR and SFO are crown jewels and dont underestimate what AA/DL would give up to step into Uniteds shoes at both locations. No other hubs in the country have the same high-value traffic and service mix. DL would drop any of its Pacific gateways (except ATL, to the extent it can be considered such) in less than a heartbeat if UA were actually willing to trade SFO.
MIA *was* in that category and remains of paramount strategic importance to AA, but doesnt generate the same returns today it did a few years ago .
AA's position in New York is anything but "aadvantageous", and my view is that this management team isn't particularly committed to it, but at the same time, doesn't really know what to do with it. Unloading JFK/LGA slots or gates would undoubtedly further strengthen competitors, and AA doesn't want UA to regain a toehold in the JFK transcons.
To your second point, and this whole AA would give up X to get SFO or DL would give up Y to get SFO, you can argue the same thing for each airline. AA would trade CLT for DL's megahub in ATL, or UA would give up DEN to get AA's DFW operation, e.t.c. e.t.c. But it doesn't matter because it wouldn't happen. Grant it, it would be one thing if CLT was a loss leader, but CLT is reportedly AA's most profitable hub.
Point is, every single US3 has a major market that they would like to have a larger position in.....But that doesn't mean they would just be reckless and trade one of their profitable core hubs for a shiny new toy. Let's also not forget that DL is a sizably more profitable airline than UA, so they specifically are likely content with their hubs even if the don't have the SFO "crown jewel"
I don't want to turn this into an AA thread or UA vs. AA thread, but I will point out that as long as AA has a large operation at LGA, I think JFK will also remain a sizable AA operation
Never said otherwise
#97
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
This is more for discussion purposes, as I haven't read anything that suggests UA has any interest in building out additional hubs or focus cities. Do folks think that UA would ever contemplate adding more domestic hubs or focus cities in the future? It seems like DL has been quite aggressive around expansion (e.g. SEA, RDU, BOS, to name a few), and while I don't have numbers, I have to imagine that this helps DL continue to build market share outside of its core hubs. With UA, the only quasi-focus city left in the network is CLE, and I don't think that is somewhere that they are really 'focusing', as opposed to keeping a legacy number of routes to spokes that make sense. UA certainly has a different hub setup relative to AA and DL (particularly with the coastal concentration), but this also means that it has some gaps in particular in the existing network, with the Southeast being the most glaring example.
)
)
I suppose UA could fight for RDU or MEM. BMH seems too small a city for a major hub.
#98
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,574
would seem to be an unique disaadvantage.
#99
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,551
But if they run everything up and down the coast through SFO instead of point-to-point for west coast cities, you might as well just drive or take the bus. A little change in the wind somewhere and flow control gets turned on and all the regional flights get delayed or turned off. No thanks. WN and AS have the west coast covered pretty well with non-stops.
#100
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hilton, Hyatt House, Del Taco
Posts: 5,369
#101
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SEA, SFO, PRG
Programs: UA 1k, Delta Gold
Posts: 77
From AUS to IAH it could be 4 hours on a busy day. That's like asking people in Baltimore to "just" drive to JFK.
#102
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Midwest
Programs: AAdvantage Platinum Pro, UA Premier Platinum, IHG Platinum Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 190
And, just because a city that a hub is in is superior economically, doesn't mean an airline would trade one of their hubs to be in that location.
#103
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 684
Not only that --- Because of the irregular nature of the traffic around both AUS and IAH, it isn't a set 4 hours, either, but can vary considerably. (The same is true between Baltimore and JFK.) Uncertainty isn't good for travel planning.
#104
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Yes, but that is quite heavily offset by the proximity of those airports to the core business districts of NYC and DC
And, just because a city that a hub is in is superior economically, doesn't mean an airline would trade one of their hubs to be in that location.
And, just because a city that a hub is in is superior economically, doesn't mean an airline would trade one of their hubs to be in that location.
Specifically, SFO generates more, higher yielding O&D traffic. Therefore, it is economically superior as a hub to other hubs that have less O&D traffic or lower yields, e.g. DTW. Therefore, an airline would be stupid to not "trade" a hub in DTW for a hub in SFO. Of course, this is a dumb argument (that is becoming circular) because we're past a point where airlines would trade hubs.
#105
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA LT 1K, 3 MM; Marriott Titanium; IHG Platinum
Posts: 6,881
What is the definition of a focus city? I guess that it serves O/D traffic from this city to nearby cities. With this said, AUS can be a focus city if it offers nonstop flights to nearby TX cities and a few cities around TX, even though IAH can offer a lot of more connecting flights to these same cities. AUS may become a focus city if UA can make money. With this definition, DCA is just a focus city for AA, as discussed previously.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.