dkc192

Did I miss something? I thought TPE-SFO has been and will remain 1x daily.

spin88

CX's issues have little to do with the premium traffic ex-HGK. CX's issues come with having cut its service level so that it's reputation is not so hot, at the same time that its bread and butter business (1) transit from Taiwan to China, and (2) US to India faced much more intense competition. The first changed with direct flights, and the second they are facing really strong competition from the ME3. SQ has some of the same issues (with the ME3). Also as some of the chinese carriers have gotten better, they have more competition ex-China (lots of high value traffic used to go China-HKG-Europe/USA, now goes direct on Chinese Carriers).

the O/D traffic ex-HGK is strong, although it may slow as the economy is starting to slow...

It is all about corporate accounts. E.g. while SFO is a UA hub, there are three CX flights/day, on SQ flight, one on UA, and now one (4x) on Hong Kong Airline (owned by Heinan). UA is not pulling in much of the high value traffic - that is taking SQ or CX - but UA has enough corporate traffic that the flight is profitable, although UA's market share is shrinking.

There is no way that UA will have a LAX-HKG. CX flies it 3x day, AA once a day, and Hong Kong 5x/week. Lots of competition, and UA just does not have the corporate accounts in LA to support a flight. My guess is its more likely that DL does a flight ex-LAX to HKG (once they get more A359s) than UA does.

Santander

Not too long ago, the HKG UC was widely considered the best in the system and a perfectly good lounge. (although still far behind the CX lounges at HKG) Interesting to observe how standards have changed.

LinBros

While the quick turn of aircraft with a double daily SFO does make sense from an aircraft perspective, crew rest issues are problematic unless you have multiple double daily flights from at east two other cities. LAX double daily would work -- EWR & ORD are difficult. Complicating matters would be the competitive impact of doubling the UA capacity to HKG. Hard to believe that adding that much premium cabin capacity wouldn't trigger adds from CX and SQ which would significantly dilute profitability. Expect status quo for a while.

LinBros

Global First lounge is back to your right after you check in at the United Club (thru the glass doors).

UA_Flyer

SFHokie

Doh! There goes my idea for quick weekend trips to WUX/SHA-PVG! The two airlines just need to get tied up to better support MY NEEDS haha

Kacee

This would certainly have me flying more UA. I find the afternoon departure extremely inefficient. I've flown two CX J roundtrips this year, and am about to book #3 , all with a late night departure from the west coast.

moondog

Not to mention SQ001. That's 2 better airlines flying at midnight.

lixiaojuventus

Oh, thanks for the reply! I will definitely take a peek next time I visit the Club at HKG

Kacee

It's technically not a Global First lounge any more. It's now a "VIP" lounge for GS.

EWR764

Don't lose sight of the fact that HKG is no longer a transfer point for UA metal, so, theoretically, UA does not have to account for capacity to SIN, SGN, going back further to DEL, etc., on its longhaul flights to/from HKG. Looking at a few years ago, that was 374 seats (SFO), 266 seats (ORD) and 267 seats (EWR) connecting to 266 seats to SIN and various numbers to SGN (150-374), not counting blocked seats for crew rest. I don't really count NRT because that route has been on/off for years, and GUM is a totally different market. That meant 916 seats a day, in and out, for the local HKG market plus 400-650 onward seats with local traffic rights.

Now, HKG is strictly an endpoint, at least from a United perspective (UA isn't sharing in beyond revenue), but capacity is 350 daily seats x2 (EWR/SFO) plus 266-276 seats (ORD), for 966-976 daily longhaul seats, which is an incremental capacity increase without the benefit of on-metal flow traffic. Provided UA is generating favorable yields with its existing service, that's arguably a healthier operation than one which depends on tag segments that were, in their own right, likely money-losers.

Still open at LHR/NRT/HKG as GS/VIP lounges.

Interesting... the first time I visited 12-15 years ago, it was about the same as it is today, with different furniture, and viewed as the best RCC in the system. So I agree that it speaks to the general improvement of United's lounge product (true) or the heightened international competition (also true).

It's certainly possible... I can see UA splitting HKG-SFO into 2x 789 with different timing, like PVG, but not this year or next. I think the HKG economy has to rebound a bit. I also know it's important for UA to have the new Polaris product in the HKG market specifically, due to the competition (SIN, too, but performance dictates 789... the first 789s with Polaris seating are coming this year and I understand they'll be preferentially scheduled out of SFO, likely to SIN).

Kacee

This would be a hard product downgrade, even if they are Polarized 789s. I would not want to be in that seat for 14 hours.

The premium market on this route is pretty discerning; I think that would hurt UA. Currently their hard product is at least competitive with, and in some respects superior to, either CX or SQ.

WineCountryUA

Just to be clear, UA no longer has any "Global First Lounges", the previous HKG GFL has been converted to a GS/VIP lounge.

UA First lounges/GFL have closed now that GF/PF is gone -- what happens to the space?

EWR764

I finally had a chance to try a 787-10 seat, and while noticeably narrower than the 77W, I still preferred it to 787 Diamond seats. I'm by no means a small person.

I think, on balance, it would be better-received than the older product. Plus, it would bring a premium economy product to the fold, which is desperately needed on the 787-8/9. As always, YMMV.