DFW-LAX nonstop is going away?

Old Mar 5, 19, 12:57 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,178
DFW-LAX nonstop is going away?

Does anyone know about the DFW-LAX non-stop service? It is generally 3x daily E75 service. Apparently it is going away at the end of March.?.

I was trying to look at Memorial Day weekend and then I realized I wasn't seeing any non-stop flights. So I backtracked and March 30 has 2 flights (which is a Saturday, so that is not surprising), but then no flights going past that. I keep wondering if this is a mistake since 3x to 0 is surprising. (And this is super inconvenient for my boyfriend and I to see each other.)
wcj1 is offline  
Old Mar 5, 19, 1:02 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by wcj1 View Post
Does anyone know about the DFW-LAX non-stop service? It is generally 3x daily E75 service. Apparently it is going away at the end of March.?.
Yes; UA ended service on that route with a schedule update in late October.
jsloan is offline  
Old Mar 5, 19, 1:20 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 9,364
Originally Posted by jsloan View Post
Yes; UA ended service on that route with a schedule update in late October.
Too bad. Easy upgrade (e.g. vs IAH-LAX). Probably part of reason itís ending.
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 9:05 am
  #4  
1P
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: LAX and LHR. UA lifetime Gold 1.8MM 1K , HHonors Gold, Marriott Plat (hah!), Best Western Plat, Hertz #1 Gold PC, Avis Preferred
Posts: 3,013
Those direct flights were always full to bursting, in both directions. No reason why they should have discontinued them.

Rather than routing through IAH, DEN is just as good except in winter. You get main line planes and upgrades can be easier.
1P is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 9:17 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by 1P View Post
Those direct flights were always full to bursting, in both directions. No reason why they should have discontinued them.
Full and profitable are two different things. You can fill any plane if you're willing to take a loss doing so.

LAX-DFW is served by NK, AA, and DL, and LAX-DAL is served by AS and WN. That may be more capacity than UA felt the market needs. It seems UA decided they could better use of their assets by allocating those planes, gates, and crews elsewhere.
jsloan is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 9:17 am
  #6  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,427
Originally Posted by 1P View Post
Those direct flights were always full to bursting, in both directions. No reason why they should have discontinued them.

Rather than routing through IAH, DEN is just as good except in winter. You get main line planes and upgrades can be easier.
Passenger loads have nothing to do with profitability. It is all about PRASM. The ease of freebie UG's would seem to point to not much paid F and that is a big money-maker. The converse is true xDFW. All that inbound traffic from Europe connecting onwards creates relatively high PRASM traffic in both Y & F.

This is not solely a UA issue. Rather it is a legacy at non-hub issue where the station is another carrier's hub. I can't speak for direct flights, but UA is only one of four carriers with nonstop service with AA, of course, offering what amounts to hourly service
Often1 is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 10:16 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: COS
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 2,727
Assuming that UA has everything figured out is wrong. Bad decisions can be made by any company, including UA. COS-IAD was dropped, but always full, and never cheap. My new boss back in 2012 thought I was making too much money and made his goal to squash what I was doing. Nothing unique about my company or UA, people in leadership roles make decisions that are sometimes correct, and sometimes wrong.
twomonger likes this.
COSPILOT is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 10:28 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,954
Originally Posted by COSPILOT View Post
Assuming that UA has everything figured out is wrong. Bad decisions can be made by any company, including UA.
Certainly. However, UA has years of highly-relevant data on any given route, whereas the rest of us have anecdotal data at best.

Is it possible that UA is making a mistake? Of course; there's always the network effect. They will likely have some percentage of flyers defect because LAX-DFW was a flight that they really needed. Their hope is obviously that whatever new service they add will bring more profitable replacement customers.

My point is just that none of us know the situation as well as UA, and to say things like there is "[n]o reason they should have discontinued them" is to make an awful lot of assumptions.
Often1 likes this.
jsloan is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 10:46 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: DFW, Texas; J Cabin of an Airline
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K, DL DM, AS MVPG, MR Plat, HH Diamond
Posts: 789
Just booked LAX-DFW for late March, sad to see it going away
IWontRegretThis is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 10:48 am
  #10  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,427
IAD-COS likely canibalized IAD-DEN. Passengers on the route did not likely book away from UA, but rather increased loads on the DEN hop. That frees up an aircraft and pushes up DEN fares (if marginally).
Often1 is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 4:08 pm
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,178
I've been flying UA from DFW for almost 20 years. I just find the frequency shift interesting. They always had flights to all hubs during this time (pre and post CO), except when they finally dehubbed CLE.

SFO and IAD are the most interesting routes as UA has sometimes gone as low as 1x (with IAD, the 1x seemed to be timed with the European flight bank). SFO is now up to 4x with half mainline and half express, which is about as high as I have seen it over this time. True, DL and NK are not competing on that route, but I am surprised that LAX went away completely, especially with the international routes from there. I would have thought they would drop LAX down to 1x, like they have done with SFO and IAD in the past, not 0.
wcj1 is offline  
Old Mar 7, 19, 4:23 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 7,122
Originally Posted by jsloan View Post
Certainly. However, UA has years of highly-relevant data on any given route, whereas the rest of us have anecdotal data at best.

Is it possible that UA is making a mistake? Of course; there's always the network effect. They will likely have some percentage of flyers defect because LAX-DFW was a flight that they really needed. Their hope is obviously that whatever new service they add will bring more profitable replacement customers.

My point is just that none of us know the situation as well as UA, and to say things like there is "[n]o reason they should have discontinued them" is to make an awful lot of assumptions.
UA can parse the data any way they want to make it seem like itís the right decision. Not unlike the shrink to profitability focus during the Smisek era based on the highly relevant data available. I believe we argued the same thing in FT, they must have known what they were doing and the collective wisdom available here wasnít worth the digital ink it was written on.
anc-ord772 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread