New UA Cities?

 
Old Nov 29, 07, 5:54 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RIC
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 3,249
Originally Posted by langleyoaker View Post
There is currently another IAD-SNA direct flight, UA239, which also departs at 6 a.m., stops in ORD, and arrives SNA at 10:24 a.m.
Good catch! I had to try the Advanced feature to find the second direct flight since it departs at the same time but arrives sooner with a layover in DEN instead of ORD.

UA491/UA491 IAD 6:00 AM SNA 10:15AM DEN 752 7h15m
UA239/UA239 IAD 6:00 AM SNA 10:24AM ORD 752 7h24m
rch4u is offline  
Old Nov 29, 07, 10:23 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ; Lviv Ukraine
Programs: UA 3.6MM, AF/KL Lifetime Plat, BA Gold, AA 1MM, IC Spire RA, Kimpton IC, Marriott Plat, et alia
Posts: 2,728
Bring back JFK-NRT.

For that matter, bring back JFK-CDG, JFK-LHR, JFK-FRA, JFK- (or EWR)anywhere ... UA's service to/from the number one air destination in the world is sorely lacking.
vsevolod4 is offline  
Old Nov 30, 07, 6:05 am
  #63  
das
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by DullesJason View Post
Funny that one.

I don't expect anyone to remember it but this route WAS, once upon a time, planned, sold and scheduled. In the summer of 2001. It was set to begin at the end of September, October, something like that. Then 9/11 happened and as I'm sure most of you recall, routes were cancelled in spades.

Will united ever again consider IAD-SNA?
I've wondered the same thing. Personally I think the chances are slim given the recent announcement of LAX-FRA service.

One thing that is somewhat unique about SNA is that a lot of travelers who live close to the airport will drive to LAX to fly a transcontinental or international trip, mainly because total travel time is quicker than a connecting flight.

What this means is that launching nonstop markets from SNA ends up cannibalizing service already available from LAX. I'm fairly sure this is why AA discontinued SNA-JFK (besides the fact that the transcon market was flooded with capacity at the time).

Going back to SNA-IAD, I don't see it being especially feasible for connections to Europe. Because of the polar route, LAX-FRA-XXX is going to be quicker than SNA-IAD-XXX, even factoring in travel time to LAX. I also think UA wants to avoid cannibalizing SNA-DEN, because SNA is a key feeder market to support eastbound connections there (remember there is a big battle for market share in DEN between UA/F9/WN).

That all said, I could be wrong. But my guess is new feed into IAD will be from cities that can benefit from the transatlantic connections.

What do others think?
das is offline  
Old Nov 30, 07, 6:06 am
  #64  
das
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by vsevolod4 View Post
Bring back JFK-NRT.
Have any marketplace dynamics changed since UA discontinued the flight?
das is offline  
Old Nov 30, 07, 1:13 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates & Arizona, USA
Programs: UA MM/1P, EK Ag, QR, TK, Marriott Life Ti, Hilton Dia, IC Spire, Hyatt Glob, Shangri-La
Posts: 4,252
Originally Posted by haddon90 View Post
Originally Posted by bhmlurker View Post
I'd think 752 is especially suited to handle the short runway and full power takeoffs. Convert more planes to P.S. and fly into SNA - tons of rich folks in orange county that you'd think would gladly pay for F and C to NY or DC.
that, makes no sense at all. p.s. to SNA? ridiculous.
Why is the idea of p.s. to SNA inherently "ridiculous"?

I imagine that there are good reasons for and against p.s. to SNA, but you can add me to the posters who would like to see -- and would fly -- SNA-IAD.

Good point about out the limited value of this route for trans-Atlantic connections, but keep in mind that most such cities are not served from SFO or LAX anyway.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Dec 1, 07 at 9:37 am Reason: removed unnecessary portion
mecabq is offline  
Old Dec 1, 07, 12:21 am
  #66  
das
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by mecabq View Post
Good point about out the limited value of this route for trans-Atlantic connections, but keep in mind that most such cities are not served from SFO or LAX anyway.
They are served via FRA. Driving to LAX and flying LAX-FRA-XXX is faster than flying SNA-IAD-XXX due to the polar route.
das is offline  
Old Dec 1, 07, 12:41 am
  #67  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,396
Originally Posted by das View Post
They are served via FRA. Driving to LAX and flying LAX-FRA-XXX is faster than flying SNA-IAD-XXX due to the polar route.
Even SNA-SFO-FRA or for a few more weeks yet, SNA-LAX-FRA.
UNITED959 is offline  
Old Dec 1, 07, 7:29 am
  #68  
das
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 3,640
Originally Posted by mecabq View Post
Why is the idea of p.s. to SNA inherently "ridiculous"?
Because it would cannibalize ps traffic out of LAX, and dump additional capacity into an already overcrowded transcon market. Also I believe a lot of the high yield ps traffic out of LAX is entertainment industry related. Just because OC is affluent doesn't mean there is a large population willing to pay out of pocket for premium cabins.

Best evidence of this is the fact that AA didn't make it flying JFK-SNA. I'd guess the reason CO flies SNA-EWR is the upside from connectiong traffic.
das is offline  
Old Dec 1, 07, 7:38 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cuenca, Ecuador
Programs: UA, AA, DL, SPG, Hyatt
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by das View Post
I've wondered the same thing. Personally I think the chances are slim given the recent announcement of LAX-FRA service.

One thing that is somewhat unique about SNA is that a lot of travelers who live close to the airport will drive to LAX to fly a transcontinental or international trip, mainly because total travel time is quicker than a connecting flight.

What this means is that launching nonstop markets from SNA ends up cannibalizing service already available from LAX. I'm fairly sure this is why AA discontinued SNA-JFK (besides the fact that the transcon market was flooded with capacity at the time).

Going back to SNA-IAD, I don't see it being especially feasible for connections to Europe. Because of the polar route, LAX-FRA-XXX is going to be quicker than SNA-IAD-XXX, even factoring in travel time to LAX. I also think UA wants to avoid cannibalizing SNA-DEN, because SNA is a key feeder market to support eastbound connections there (remember there is a big battle for market share in DEN between UA/F9/WN).

That all said, I could be wrong. But my guess is new feed into IAD will be from cities that can benefit from the transatlantic connections.

What do others think?
I think your reasons are sound, but . . . UA had the nonstop IAD-SNA open for sale, meaning it was viable at the time. I think there is more like a 50-50 chance UA would find good enough reason to do it again someday. I don't think DEN-SNA is one of their concerns. But you're right, LAX-FRA definitely reduces the need.
DullesJason is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: