UA life post COVID-19 recovery

Old May 4, 20, 11:11 pm
  #151  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 908
Getting back on Topic:

Suppose that UA is 10% smaller, 25% smaller, 40% smaller, which routes can we speculate to be cut, or added for that matter? Obviously domestic routes with multiple frequencies would probably see some cuts, but I'm thinking more about the long-haul routes. I personally, can only speculate based off of frequencies as I do not know the specific drivers of each route, but a few come to mind:

1. I can see SYD service being 1X daily from SFO in the low season and maybe 1X daily in the high season. MEL could return to the SFO-SYD-MEL-SYD-SFO routing we saw.
2. Since UA is more interested in HND that NRT, move all operations to there with only 1 trip per day from each of the hubs, the way NRT was served 5 years ago.
3. LHR service. While there was discussion towards the beginning of this thread about protecting the slots, would that be necessary if there is a world-wide demand decline? Who would UA be protecting the slots from?
4. I could see reducing the PS service from hourly to 4 or 5 flights per day with 772s. While the 772s need more FAs, there would be a labor savings with pilots, and the assets are already available.

Also, would UA be inclined to remove some of the Trans-oceanic & continental flights (SFO-Europe, EWR/IAD-Asia) and force connections at the closer gateway?

Finally, for routes cut, would it make more sense to cut one entire route or cut 2 routes in half? I'm thinking along the lines of MEL-LAX/SFO on a 4x/3x frequency? Would doing let's say EWR-HND 4x and IAD-HND 3X be of any benefit, or would travelers just make the connection on the off-days anyway?

Please feel free to add your own thoughts on other routes as well.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old May 6, 20, 4:35 am
  #152  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: OZ, DL, AC, AS, AA, BA, Marriott, Hilton, IHG, Hyatt
Posts: 6,332
Originally Posted by phkc070408 View Post
Getting back on Topic:

Suppose that UA is 10% smaller, 25% smaller, 40% smaller, which routes can we speculate to be cut, or added for that matter? Obviously domestic routes with multiple frequencies would probably see some cuts, but I'm thinking more about the long-haul routes. I personally, can only speculate based off of frequencies as I do not know the specific drivers of each route, but a few come to mind:

1. I can see SYD service being 1X daily from SFO in the low season and maybe 1X daily in the high season. MEL could return to the SFO-SYD-MEL-SYD-SFO routing we saw.
2. Since UA is more interested in HND that NRT, move all operations to there with only 1 trip per day from each of the hubs, the way NRT was served 5 years ago.
3. LHR service. While there was discussion towards the beginning of this thread about protecting the slots, would that be necessary if there is a world-wide demand decline? Who would UA be protecting the slots from?
4. I could see reducing the PS service from hourly to 4 or 5 flights per day with 772s. While the 772s need more FAs, there would be a labor savings with pilots, and the assets are already available.

Also, would UA be inclined to remove some of the Trans-oceanic & continental flights (SFO-Europe, EWR/IAD-Asia) and force connections at the closer gateway?

Finally, for routes cut, would it make more sense to cut one entire route or cut 2 routes in half? I'm thinking along the lines of MEL-LAX/SFO on a 4x/3x frequency? Would doing let's say EWR-HND 4x and IAD-HND 3X be of any benefit, or would travelers just make the connection on the off-days anyway?

Please feel free to add your own thoughts on other routes as well.
Huh? Don't you mean the other way around?
lsquare is offline  
Old May 7, 20, 9:20 am
  #153  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Programs: DL Plat, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat, Hertz Prez Circle, National Exec
Posts: 1,308
Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
Well, once you are permitted in, that is!
Exactly. I'll fly again when I feel its safe but also when other countries will let me in. If I have to quarantine for 2 weeks on arrival, which I think is going to be the norm for a while, I'm not going to jump on a plane for a week off in Paris or anything like that. And work isn't going to send me somewhere where that's required unless they absolutely have to. Though maybe some stuff will shift into being an expat assignment that lasts for 6-12 months vs flying over for a week once a month.

But it's also a economic thing. Lots of industries, including my own, are going through a huge contraction right now and even though I have a comfortable job still at the moment the unease about the future means that it is going to be some time before I'd be comfortable spending a bunch of money to fly somewhere for vacation even if the pandemic fear is taken care of. That won't come back until I feel confident that my industry has hit bottom and is growing again and concerns of layoffs subside.
Zeeb is offline  
Old May 8, 20, 8:31 pm
  #154  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by lsquare View Post
Huh? Don't you mean the other way around?
I can see SYD service being 1X daily from SFO in the low season and maybe 1X daily From LAX in the high season

Accidental omission.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old May 8, 20, 11:50 pm
  #155  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: UA MP
Posts: 1,641
I find this entire thread quite interesting....

I have had a lot of online meetings recently and the meeting content isn't overly different from face-to-face, what isn't said in meetings - just interacting with other people - is missed. For example, I went into my office on Thursday and in the first hour (while I was in an online meeting) had multiple people come up to me to discuss things.

In terms of business trips, my company tends to minimize ones just for meetings but thinks nothing of spending thousands of dollars per person to get essential projects done. I've seen people get sent internationally for projects (again, spending thousands of dollars for Y fares) just because of a lack of planning and I honestly don't expect that to change.
acregal is offline  
Old May 9, 20, 6:55 pm
  #156  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G; Marriott Bonvoy Gold; ALL Gold; Hertz PC
Posts: 7,729
Originally Posted by phkc070408 View Post
Getting back on Topic:

Suppose that UA is 10% smaller, 25% smaller, 40% smaller, which routes can we speculate to be cut, or added for that matter? Obviously domestic routes with multiple frequencies would probably see some cuts, but I'm thinking more about the long-haul routes. I personally, can only speculate based off of frequencies as I do not know the specific drivers of each route, but a few come to mind:

1. I can see SYD service being 1X daily from SFO in the low season and maybe 1X daily in the high season. MEL could return to the SFO-SYD-MEL-SYD-SFO routing we saw.
2. Since UA is more interested in HND that NRT, move all operations to there with only 1 trip per day from each of the hubs, the way NRT was served 5 years ago.
3. LHR service. While there was discussion towards the beginning of this thread about protecting the slots, would that be necessary if there is a world-wide demand decline? Who would UA be protecting the slots from?
4. I could see reducing the PS service from hourly to 4 or 5 flights per day with 772s. While the 772s need more FAs, there would be a labor savings with pilots, and the assets are already available.

Also, would UA be inclined to remove some of the Trans-oceanic & continental flights (SFO-Europe, EWR/IAD-Asia) and force connections at the closer gateway?

Finally, for routes cut, would it make more sense to cut one entire route or cut 2 routes in half? I'm thinking along the lines of MEL-LAX/SFO on a 4x/3x frequency? Would doing let's say EWR-HND 4x and IAD-HND 3X be of any benefit, or would travelers just make the connection on the off-days anyway?

Please feel free to add your own thoughts on other routes as well.
The biggest circle UA has to square is that they have a huge widebody fleet in a time when international demand is going to be squashed for who knows how long. I think even their current international schedule is somewhat optimistic. Is there a way to fly a bunch of Dreamliners and 772s efficiently domestically...?
PsiFighter37 is offline  
Old May 11, 20, 6:33 am
  #157  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 42,915
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
I respectfully disagree.

This pandemic is so unprecedented. We are witnessing something happens once a century in our life-time.

Something like the financial crisis, SARS, etc. pales in comparison. Not even close.

Airlines will shrink significantly across the board. It will take at least 3 years to get back to anything remotely resembles pre-CoVid-19 level.
I agree with all of the above. We aren't going to get a vaccine until 2021, unless some scientific miracle takes place. Given that the docs are still discovering new ways that the virus attacks the body, I don't see a miracle treatment anytime soon, either. Until then, people are only going to fly when it is absolutely necessary. Which means businesses will only send employees out when they absolutely have to, and discretionary travel will be a shadow of its former self.

As a 1MM it pains me to say it, but I'm glad I don't have any business travel scheduled for the remainder of the year.
kb1992, tvhead, Zeeb and 1 others like this.
halls120 is offline  
Old May 11, 20, 9:55 am
  #158  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 825
One thing I'm curious about is what UA has to do and how well they can adapt in a world where effective treatment exists but so does the infectiousness of the current pandemic. What does it do to logistics and capacity if the airlines have to implement rigorous sanitization between flights? Surely that's a cost that has to be reflected in ticket prices -- and so would some kind of physical separation requirements (that might bring back some of the comfort levels of the 1970s). UA's widebody fleet might actually be an asset under this circumstance but decreasing passenger load to increase separation will also increase ticket prices. An increase in prices would drop demand so is there some new happy medium between price and capacity under this logistics strain?
ExplorerWannabe is offline  
Old May 11, 20, 6:02 pm
  #159  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by halls120 View Post
I agree with all of the above. We aren't going to get a vaccine until 2021, unless some scientific miracle takes place. Given that the docs are still discovering new ways that the virus attacks the body, I don't see a miracle treatment anytime soon, either. Until then, people are only going to fly when it is absolutely necessary. Which means businesses will only send employees out when they absolutely have to, and discretionary travel will be a shadow of its former self.

As a 1MM it pains me to say it, but I'm glad I don't have any business travel scheduled for the remainder of the year.
x2 and even with emerging therapeutics and vaccines down the way, many companies have found a way to operate and function effectively in the Zoom, MS teams et al universe that will drive structural behavior changes around travel .As you say the base load of business travel will most likely be much lower in the new normal as managing incompany activity travel costs and people risk gets more scrutiny. Even as things start to open up I think site access by outsiders , consultants , sales people will be much more restricted with additional pre screening perhaps even evidence of test results prior to access.If a company is operating in an area of low viral activity the last thing they would want is to import some infection and compromise their staff or visa versa for a visitor.
wanderingkev is offline  
Old May 13, 20, 12:16 pm
  #160  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Programs: DL Plat, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat, Hertz Prez Circle, National Exec
Posts: 1,308
Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe View Post
One thing I'm curious about is what UA has to do and how well they can adapt in a world where effective treatment exists but so does the infectiousness of the current pandemic. What does it do to logistics and capacity if the airlines have to implement rigorous sanitization between flights? Surely that's a cost that has to be reflected in ticket prices -- and so would some kind of physical separation requirements (that might bring back some of the comfort levels of the 1970s). UA's widebody fleet might actually be an asset under this circumstance but decreasing passenger load to increase separation will also increase ticket prices. An increase in prices would drop demand so is there some new happy medium between price and capacity under this logistics strain?

I think an effect treatment would go a very long way towards getting us somewhat back to normal even if there isn't a vaccine. I think you are right that there would still be additional demands for a less crowded cabin and for sanitation, and mass gatherings like concerts and full sports stadiums would still be out. But I think people would be much, much more likely to get on an airplane to take a vacation or for a work trip if they had confidence that if they did catch this they wouldn't be rolling the dice on whether they have a mild case or not. I know I would.
Zeeb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: