spartacusmcfly

Looks like there's a new player in the mix!

Air Canada just announced non-stop service from YVR to SIN!

Interesting option given AC's emergence as one of the stronger Star Alliance mileage programs.

It also looks like AC is keeping the YVR-BKK non-stop on the schedule, so that experiment appears successful.

Additionally, Vietnam Airways seems to be doing well with their 4x weekly non-stop service to Ho Chi Minh City from SFO.

UA's 2x daily SFO-SIN seems to be going strong, so I wonder if we'll see South East Asia expansion in UA's plans.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/air-ca...ngapore-route/

Repooc17

With predominantly leisure destinations, don't see a lot of expansions from UA. And also the JV with NH is a factor.

SQ is well served to/from NA and the rest of SEA.

SQ is leaving YVR later this year.

​​​​​​Don't forget PR, which flies between Manila and 5 NA airports (JFK, YYZ, YVR, SFO, LAX).

I am obligated to list SFO-BKK here for no reasons at all.

spartacusmcfly

Do you think the JV explicitly restricts them from flying to SEA non-stop?


Hasn't UA pivoted to more leisure markets? Especially given what appears to be a lasting decline in business travel?

They've added non-stops to the Canary Islands, Naples, Rome, Malaga, Ponta Delgada, Porto, etc...

If you can fill Porto 7x/week, why not BKK 3x/week?

Maybe has more to do with ULH aircraft availability than desire.

hirohito888

Because EWR-OPO can be done with a single fully paid off 757. Operating costs are much lower and I would assume per passenger yield is also higher than most SEA destinations. Same goes for PDL, AGP, PMI, NCE, etc. They are also seasonal, so UA is capitalizing on peak demand. SEA would require 2x 789, larger crew and more costs and capital involved.

The other factor is that SEA fares are usually diluted due to much higher competition than TATL. They are competing with 3 carriers in Japan/Korea (of which 1 in JV partner), 2 (maybe 3) in TPE, plus CX in HKG, and I'm sure Mainland China carriers are waiting to jump back into the market. And then a few more SEA carriers doing non-stop (SQ, PR, VN). And also for North America East Coast, you could fly the other way using ME3/TK/SV.

spartacusmcfly

Sure, but half a dozen other airlines are making it work to SEA, and UA's cost structure is lower than theirs.

UA has negotiated fewer FAs per frame with their union and UA's purchasing power gives them the lowest ULH aircraft cost in the world.

Nor am I buying the seasonality argument. When you're on the equator there's only one season

Doesn't Thailand demand exist 24x7x365?

Well, yes, if UA does nothing, at some point the market will be fully served, and UA will have missed out.

Right now, Air Canada, Vietnam Airlines, Philippine Airlines, and Bamboo (soon), are all making SEA non-stop work.

I'd love to see UA at least experiment with another non-stop into the region.

Repooc17

Are you sure about that? You mean to tell me UA has lower cost structures than a carrier like PR, for example?
​
No. And also, operating a route is more than just demand.

​​​​​​Logistics is another hurdle. UA is more than happy having NH handle the traffic to/from SEA.

The spreadsheet equation does not work for UA, so no go.

HNLbasedFlyer

Crew costs for Philippine Airlines are a fraction compared to UA regardless of how many people are working on the plane.

Kacee

Why is this even a debate? If UA believed it could generate a better return on aircraft usage flying nonstop to SEA than current aircraft deployment, they'd be doing it.

hirohito888

Different carriers, different cost structures, different markets and different traffic flow.

KE flying HAN-ICN-LAX can capitalize and supplement their flights with Vietnam-Korea (HAN-ICN) and Korea-LA (ICN-LAX) business and O&D traffic (lots of Korean companies in Vietnam and in LA). So any connecting traffic is only a portion of their business. They're also deploying just 1 A330 and 1.5 A380/B748.

UA flying SFO-HAN would need to have all traffic from US (maybe some ex-Canada/Mexico) or from HAN. And they need all those passengers to a pay profitable fare. Someone from ORD, DFW, SEA are likely going to have cheaper options doing 1-stop on KE/JL/CI etc. And I don't expect there are many ex-HAN passengers paying a premium for non-stop. UA needs to dedicate 2 789 just for this route.

UA has probably calculated that experimenting in other regions is more profitable (SFO-CHC, EWR-JNB/CPT, etc.).

PsiFighter37

I�m surprised UA hasn�t given something like SFO-DPS or SFO-HKT a shot yet. I feel like those would be inspired choices. I also imagine that UA can�t commit a bunch of 789s to a new route because they will have to redeploy them to PRC routes if/when capacity restrictions on US-China flying are lifted.

jsloan

The economics for ULH flights are different. ULH flights are more expensive to operate, per mile, than long-haul flights. In order to fly SFO-DPS or SFO-HKT, they need to transport thousands of pounds of fuel for thousands of miles (to operate those last couple thousand miles). That fuel is heavy, so you need more fuel to carry the fuel� and then more fuel to carry that. SFO-DPS is about 30% longer than SFO-TPE, but it may need 50% more fuel or more (I haven�t done the calculations; the point is, it�s substantial).

UA�s new leisure routes are all much shorter than SFO-DPS or SFO-HKT would be.

SPN Lifer

Given the ongoing U.S. military build-up on Guam, perhaps SFO-GUM would make more financial sense. I would expect UA to be evaluating this on an regular basis.

lsquare

Too bad PR isn't part of any alliances.

I need the Chinese carriers to come back in full force. The current tpac prices are insane. Hopefully, we'll see 2018/2019 prices in the near future. I also want to fly to PVG for less than $500 in economy.

With the exception of food, UA isn't too bad. I basically flew SFO-SIN with UA every week from late September 2022 to early December 2022. I'd love to see a flight to KUL or BKK one day. I rather spend my holiday in BKK than HNL.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I think USG is also complaining about GUM fares? Gotta bring down the prices, boys...
​​​​​​​

uanj

You hit the nail on the head on ULH, the economics are challenging and without a premium cabin they don't work at all.

Still, I am a little surprised that United has not tried SFO-GUM non-stop, then GUM-BKK, GUM-DPS (which CO used to fly), GUM-CGK even if not daily or with GUM based 737s. But years and ago I did meet a route planner for UA who basically said that they look at single connections for their traffic predictions. Which is why they grew SFO to be so big. Anywhere in the US to SFO (basically) and then onward to anywhere UA flies in the Pacific, just one connection. Markets far away like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and at that time India would need to rely on double connections which they just did not model. They wanted ANA to carry those passengers. Maybe it is the same now, but they sure did change their thinking on premium leisure markets across the Atlantic.

As an aside, I happened to be on one of the SFO-TPE flights during the pandemic which stopped and changed crews in GUM. Boy, talk about an energetic and happy bunch of FAs!

5-6 years ago I flew IAD-HNL non-stop. A UA GA met the flight to escort 30+ passengers continuing to GUM. Made me wonder just how many people are flying to GUM. The guy behind me complained to someone he knew on the flight that his company switched him to that route but he preferred going through NRT. He was going to make sure on his next trip he did not chose a day that IAD-HNL was operating.

lsquare

Is this why no ULCs have attempted tpac?

Does UA even have a long-term plan in GUM? UA is embarking on a years-long modernization program. Hopefully, they'll have the aircraft to make it work.