Well now that this is public, they are talking about is a Terminal-9 concept located on the Eastside of Sepulveda by the currently leased DL hangar and AA Eagle terminal.

Concepts for T-9 include FIS facility for United use.

United Airlines Said to Plan Los Angeles Push in Comeback Effort
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ack-effort

=

Kirby rightfully realizes UA needs to maintain scale in the nations second largest air travel market, but is terminal limited today to do so.

While this is a long term project, I suspect we will still see LAX schedule adjustments in the coming year to better serve for local O&D needs.

Well that ought to be ... interesting ... to watch. Just when we thought LAX airfares couldn't get any more competitive! Haha.

I must admit that all of this time and effort - to say nothing of money - being devoted by countless different entities to trying to rebuild around LAX's already suboptimal terminal layout does make one wonder about how much better off it all could have been had they started from scratch. It isn't hard to envision a setup much more akin to the ATL toaster, with one huge, consolidated main terminal and transportation facility, and roughly 1 big north-south-oriented concourse each for AA, Delta and United, another for the miscellaneous domestic airlines, and then another 1-2 for the international operations. It would have cost many billions and taken years, but then, so have all of these piecemeal projects over the course of the last decade and a half.

This is GRAND news. I knew that Oscar, being a Southern California native, what not going to sit by idly and watch AA and DL continue to surpass UA at LAX.

This should kill the "UA to dehub LAX" rumors. Kirby already knows a lot about LAX from his AA days. This is going to be intense!

Can we expect them to create a virtual SFO 2.0? Mirroring Chinese expansion as well as seasonal LAX-AKL during the northern summer to compliment SFO's winter seasonal AKL flight to keep some kind of year-round service?

commavia wrote:

Well that ought to be ... interesting ... to watch. Just when we thought LAX airfares couldn't get any more competitive! Haha.

I must admit that all of this time and effort - to say nothing of money - being devoted by countless different entities to trying to rebuild around LAX's already suboptimal terminal layout does make one wonder about how much better off it all could have been had they started from scratch. It isn't hard to envision a setup much more akin to the ATL toaster, with one huge, consolidated main terminal and transportation facility, and roughly 1 big north-south-oriented concourse each for AA, Delta and United, another for the miscellaneous domestic airlines, and then another 1-2 for the international operations. It would have cost many billions and taken years, but then, so have all of these piecemeal projects over the course of the last decade and a half.

Consider the source. This is the same guy who told AA employees that AA had a deal pending for all of T5. There never was any deal for all of T5. There were discussions. And, they failed because Kirby did not understand the scope of what was going on.

Now, he's telling UA employees the same story with similar "scope" problems. T9 would sit on the site of the current Eagle Facility.

As to the terminal layout, you know how I feel about that. But it is already to late to reverse course with about $1.6 Billion of buybacks already promised to Delta for T2/T3.

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

I feel like I have heard this before. United growing and shrinking LAX. When the economy is strong, UA wants to increase LAX. I remember the same story in 1997. Either way, good for the customers to have more options.

Between the (still kind of) new TBIT, the plans Delta has for the northern terminals and UA's new Terminal 9, LAX is going to look a lot different in a few (or not so few) years!

I find it really interesting how all of the US3 can sustain a hub at one airport. Just a testament to just how many people live in the LA area - especially when you consider the other airports scattered about like LGB, BUR and ONT.

In any case, good for United. I will say that just after the merger I did not like the airline at all but they clearly have been making strides recently to make themselves both stronger and more attractive. All the best for their future!

LAXintl wrote:

Well now that this is public, they are talking about is a Terminal-9 concept located on the Eastside of Sepulveda by the currently leased DL hangar and AA Eagle terminal.

Concepts for T-9 include FIS facility for United use.

United Airlines Said to Plan Los Angeles Push in Comeback Effort
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ack-effort

=

Kirby rightfully realizes UA needs to maintain scale in the nations second largest air travel market, but is terminal limited today to do so.

While this is a long term project, I suspect we will still see LAX schedule adjustments in the coming year to better serve for local O&D needs.

So to synopsize, UA now that they've been watching their position in LAX drop for years, they have a "plan" that involves the lord-knows how many years it would take to get a full FIS terminal permitted and built in LAX?

Let's see how well that goes.

does UA have the option to get its T6 gates back? i could see that as an interim solution, as a potential T9 wouldn't be ready for years (5+ years?). remember that LA will most likely be hosting the summer olympics in 2024.

i'd love to see kirby replicate AA's LAX flagship entrance in a T9 as part of an all-out effort to draw more premium customers. who knows, maybe UA could bring back JFK (i kid, i kid).

Chemist wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Well now that this is public, they are talking about is a Terminal-9 concept located on the Eastside of Sepulveda by the currently leased DL hangar and AA Eagle terminal.

Concepts for T-9 include FIS facility for United use.

United Airlines Said to Plan Los Angeles Push in Comeback Effort
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ack-effort

=

Kirby rightfully realizes UA needs to maintain scale in the nations second largest air travel market, but is terminal limited today to do so.

While this is a long term project, I suspect we will still see LAX schedule adjustments in the coming year to better serve for local O&D needs.

So to synopsize, UA now that they've been watching their position in LAX drop for years, they have a "plan" that involves the lord-knows how many years it would take to get a full FIS terminal permitted and built in LAX?

Let's see how well that goes.

I hope you realize that most of the upper management and executive power in this company has changed in the past year? Quite literally a different company at the top, so it's not fair to say it is the same people who watched LAX be reduced, a new team is in town and they are making changes and renewing their interest in LAX is one of the changes.

Dont forget guys that United in October entered agreement with LAWA for a new consolidated TechOps complex by 2019.

This consolidated complex is adjacent to the T-9 concept.

LAXintl wrote:

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

Should we queue up speculation of a return to JFK as part of this too?

LAXintl wrote:

Well now that this is public, they are talking about is a Terminal-9 concept located on the Eastside of Sepulveda by the currently leased DL hangar and AA Eagle terminal.

Concepts for T-9 include FIS facility for United use.

Imagine the convenience of having a check-in terminal east of Sepulveda and not having to enter the horse-shoe traffic nightmare with the rest of the ground traffic. Assuming that there would be a check-in area and not just gates...that alone would be a huge advantage. You could literally walk to the terminal from quite a few hotels on Century Blvd.

The FIS plan is strange in that they already have an FIS in T7 unless the new T9 would be all Int'l and T7 would be reconfigured with more narrowbody gates while T9 would be mostly widebody. I don't see them maintaining customs in both terminals.

United is better than Frontier & Spirit but behind Alaska, American, Delta & Southwest. I doubt United will make a comeback.

dc10lover wrote:

United is better than Frontier & Spirit but behind Alaska, American, Delta & Southwest. I doubt United will make a comeback.

By which metric?

On a grander scale, reminds me of TWA at JFK when they decided to grow to the Caribbean. Too little too late.

Why would UA now decide to build up LAX after years of decline? To compete with 2 other airlines?

They have a giant, uncontested hub up the road and will maintain an O and D-based (sans JFK) operation at LAX. The days of a dual west coast giant hub strategy are over.

jfklganyc wrote:

On a grander scale, reminds me of TWA at JFK when they decided to grow to the Caribbean. Too little too late.

Why would UA now decide to build up LAX after years of decline? To compete with 2 other airlines?

They have a giant, uncontested hub up the road and will maintain an O and D-based (sans JFK) operation at LAX. The days of a dual west coast giant hub strategy are over.

It's not like they are a tiny player at LAX. Certainly they've squandered a lot, but clearer new management thinks they have room for more profitable domestic travel at the largest O&D airport.

dc10lover wrote:

United is better than Frontier & Spirit but behind Alaska, American, Delta & Southwest. I doubt United will make a comeback.

If you're talking about LAX, UA is close to Delta, ahead of WN and at least twice the size of AS/VX.

jfklganyc wrote:

On a grander scale, reminds me of TWA at JFK when they decided to grow to the Caribbean. Too little too late.

Why would UA now decide to build up LAX after years of decline? To compete with 2 other airlines?

They have a giant, uncontested hub up the road and will maintain an O and D-based (sans JFK) operation at LAX. The days of a dual west coast giant hub strategy are over.

I think they are just changing the narrative. They committed to LAX there in the middle of a huge facility upgrade. I don't think you will see much change but why not get the talk headed in a better direction.

UA had their chance...they've given up gates but now they want to grow? And the only way to do it is to build an entirely new terminal? Delusional. I suppose it could happen but would take at least ten years...by then they'll have become a bit player to AA, DL. Even AS/VX might be carrying more passengers in 5-10 years than UA out of LAX.

Anyone have a depiction of terminal 9? Most of the stuff I have is super dated.

jfklganyc wrote:

Too little too late.

Why would UA now decide to build up LAX after years of decline? To compete with 2 other airlines?

They have a giant, uncontested hub up the road and will maintain an O and D-based (sans JFK) operation at LAX. The days of a dual west coast giant hub strategy are over.

They are roughly the same size and DL at LAX.

IAD is 140 miles closer to EWR than LAX is to SFO.

DL has dual west coast hubs.

AA has ~5 East Coast hubs, 2 west coast hubs doesn't sound outrageous considering that is where growth is. In fact UA already does have two west coast hubs and have for quite some time.

tortugamon

hiflyeras wrote:

Even AS/VX might be carrying more passengers in 5-10 years than UA out of LAX.

0% chance of that happening. They're not even 50% of UA at LAX with AS/VX combined today. LAX will be a productive hobby for AS, but that's it. While UA isn't what they once were at LAX they are still 15% market share and 22 gates. They're rehabbing their terminals and making long term plans.

Okay, it may just have been publicized in the public realm, but the discussion of a potential LAX T-9 began on this website 2 years ago. And I'll give a hat tip to ldvaviation. It was he who intimated the UA angle, IIRC, 6 to 9 months ago.

Having said all that, the key to this is in the following sentence from the article:"President Scott Kirby told United pilots this month that the company needs more space and is studying plans to claim most or all of a future terminal"

From what little I know, if UA obtains full rights to T9, it would be in an arrangement similar to what DL has for T2 & T3. In essence, UA would manage the terminal and lure some of its Star Alliance members (to eliminate, as much as practicable, the disjointed Star Alliance LAX experience). Any Star member that makes the move would be a subtenant of UA.

And, since LAWA really has no interest in building terminals, UA would likely obtain full control with a requisite financial commitment.

aaway wrote:

Okay, it may just have been publicized in the public realm, but the discussion of a potential LAX T-9 began on this website 2 years ago. And I'll give a hat tip to ldvaviation. It was he who intimated the UA angle, IIRC, 6 to 9 months ago.

Time flies: viewtopic.php?t=592835

This has been around since the mid 90's.

tortugamon

tortugamon wrote:

aaway wrote:

Okay, it may just have been publicized in the public realm, but the discussion of a potential LAX T-9 began on this website 2 years ago. And I'll give a hat tip to ldvaviation. It was he who intimated the UA angle, IIRC, 6 to 9 months ago.

Time flies: viewtopic.php?t=592835

This has been around since the mid 90's.

tortugamon

Thanks I remember reading that tread. Delta1011man might not want to read it. LOL

What about the LAX gate cap? United could space out their existing gates (22 per article), but how many more are available for new gates?

LAXintl wrote:

Dont forget guys that United in October entered agreement with LAWA for a new consolidated TechOps complex by 2019.

This consolidated complex is adjacent to the T-9 concept.

How is that meaningful? That area was previously designated a relocation area for aircraft maintenance tenants. There is no strategic connection.

The terminal 9 idea has been floating around for years. United has always been associated with the concept in one form or another. More recently and months before Kirby joined the airline, United revisited the idea in a presentation to the Capital Programming and Planning Group. (I posted about this last year.) Kirby may have had casual discussions with some LAWA officials, but that's still where things stand.

In part because United no longer controls its own destiny at LAX. Not only does LAWA control the fate of the Eagle Terminal Facility but it also hasn't started to plan for its replacement. It's not even the subject of LAWA's current property negotiations with AA.

ADent wrote:

What about the LAX gate cap? United could space out their existing gates (22 per article), but how many more are available for new gates?

The agreement resulting from the runway relocation litigation stipulates the old gate cap of 153 gates remain in place until Dec. 2024. However, it can terminate before Dec. 2024, provided LAWA issue formal notice for plans to replace the remote gates between now and then.

UA not only has much more capable, efficient aircraft at its disposal today but also a much more competitive product. We are talking about an airline that has sucked it up on routes like LAX-BOS/DFW/MCO/PHX/PVG/SEA/SLC/YVR for years - in order to remain attractive to Angeleno FFers. I certainly don't think UA is afraid to jump back on routes like HKG, PHL, PDX, SJC and/or South Florida now that it has 787s, 737NGs and E-175s. There may even be new opportunities to consider, from a niche regional route like SAF to a popular long haul destination like TLV..

intotheair wrote:

Too bad for UA they never came up with a creative plan to take over T2, T3, and some TBIT gates before DL came up with it.

UA has near-exclusive use of 2, soon to be 3 terminals; and one, soon to be 2 FIS facilities. I'd say UA has a pretty decent set-up in LAX.

I'd love to see what destinations Kirby has in mind for the near-term out of LAX.

LAXintl wrote:

Dont forget guys that United in October entered agreement with LAWA for a new consolidated TechOps complex by 2019.

This consolidated complex is adjacent to the T-9 concept.

But still, how long does it take to get a new terminal approved and built, with FIS? Can't be very quick. An awful lot can change in that length of time.

SurfandSnow wrote:

UA not only has much more capable, efficient aircraft at its disposal today but also a much more competitive product. We are talking about an airline that has sucked it up on routes like LAX-BOS/DFW/MCO/PHX/PVG/SEA/SLC/YVR for years - in order to remain attractive to Angeleno FFers. I certainly don't think UA is afraid to jump back on routes like HKG, PHL, PDX, SJC and/or South Florida now that it has 787s, 737NGs and E-175s. There may even be new opportunities to consider, from a niche regional route like SAF to a popular long haul destination like TLV..

som

It would just be nice to get some mainline. Anytime I go somewhere on UA it seems I'm on an RJ when I would be mainline on other airlines.

And of course that's ignoring their new ULCC leaning in BE.

SurfandSnow wrote:

. I certainly don't think UA is afraid to jump back on routes like HKG, PHL, PDX, SJC and/or South Florida now that it has 787s, 737NGs and E-175s.

And yet, they've had those planes for years, but the only significant such LAX route they've actually jumped back on has been MEL.

Nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly them jumping into the fray either.
Meanwhile, AA has been adding the likes of HKG, SYD, AKL, PEK, etc....

Chemist wrote:

But still, how long does it take to get a new terminal approved and built, with FIS? Can't be very quick. An awful lot can change in that length of time.

Not only that but what about the cost for a brand new terminal? A billion or more? Also, how would it link into the yet to be built Airtrain and who would pay for that? I mean, UA would need a gigantic terminal to house all partners under one roof otherwise the connections that would have to be made would be a nightmare going from the main terminal area of LAX to a new terminal 9 east of Sepulveda

This is a good development as United always had a large footprint at LAX though over the past 20+ years it has grown and then subsequently shrunk its operation there. In between all of that, it neglected its Terminals and seemed sit out the battle for LAX between AA and DL. Perhaps the terminal upgrades, the 787-9 focused long haul operation, and the fact that LAX is the second largest international and domestic market in the country, with a new management at the top of the UA house finally has them rethinking the strategy. The only question I have is to where will UA really grow its route network from LAX? Will it duplicate what DL and AA already have done? Long haul, other than PEK, maybe BNE, or shifting the restarted AKL route (now going seasonal) from SFO to LAX, there isn't a whole lot that they can do, is there? UA's issue in my mind is that they have the strongest and most profitable West Coast hub in SFO, whereas what AA and DL have is essentially piece-meal. Whatever UA can do in LAX, it can do in SFO. Perhaps the new management needs a reason to justify a $500MM long overdue renovation of T7/8 and commit to an essential market that no one really can ever own anyway. In any case, I'm glad to know they are doing this.

I get a whiff of feeling that Scott Kirby has something personal invested in showing up AAL on behalf of UAL and their great history at LAX. But I do not believe U has the ability to beat a committed AA at LAX. Is this another ORD situation? IMO United will not have the backbone to achieve even that. Nor should they. Fares are going to be low at LAX for the next 7-8 years while this works itself out.

AA needs LAX as an Asian hub while it is not essential for UA. AA can afford to achieve it no matter what United has to say about it. However many billions they mutually put into a fare war the result is going to be the same. Anyway, when titans clash, the consumer wins!

Great news to see terminal space on the East land.

I could hope for T-0 too!... And rail access to a destination (rule of thumb is for every added seat transfer 75% of the passengers opt to skip mass transit and drive).

I wish UA luck.

Neil

What are the hours of operation of UA's current T7 FIS at LAX? And how many gates are connected to it?

I know the SYD and MEL flights arrive at the TBIT because the T7 FIS isn't open yet, but NRT, PVG, LHR, and inbound flights from Mexico all use T7, no?

Flighty wrote:

I get a whiff of feeling that Scott Kirby has something personal invested in showing up AAL on behalf of UAL and their great history at LAX. But I do not believe U has the ability to beat a committed AA at LAX. Is this another ORD situation? IMO United will not have the backbone to achieve even that. Nor should they. Fares are going to be low at LAX for the next 7-8 years while this works itself out.

AA needs LAX as an Asian hub while it is not essential for UA. AA can afford to achieve it no matter what United has to say about it. However many billions they mutually put into a fare war the result is going to be the same. Anyway, when titans clash, the consumer wins!

But they're already a significant player at LAX and even if they add a handful of flights they stay competitive and likely limit B6 and AS at LAX. Clearly yields aren't great, but they're already surviving there.

Don't understand the ORD comment since UA has been #1 there forever. Unless you're referring to Kirby's time at AA.

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

Should we queue up speculation of a return to JFK as part of this too?

Not with EWR across the river.

Flighty wrote:

I get a whiff of feeling that Scott Kirby has something personal invested in showing up AAL on behalf of UAL and their great history at LAX. But I do not believe U has the ability to beat a committed AA at LAX. Is this another ORD situation? IMO United will not have the backbone to achieve even that. Nor should they. Fares are going to be low at LAX for the next 7-8 years while this works itself out.

AA needs LAX as an Asian hub while it is not essential for UA. AA can afford to achieve it no matter what United has to say about it. However many billions they mutually put into a fare war the result is going to be the same. Anyway, when titans clash, the consumer wins!

All the more reason for UA to try to hit back at AA. While UA's dominance over the Pacific is not contested by AA's recent buildup at LAX, this is United's chance to stop any further growth for AA. LAX is AA's only shot at a West Coast TPAC hub, while both DL and UA have two (albeit of smaller scale for both DL and UA at LAX compared to SEA and SFO, respectively). If AA fails with its LAX efforts, AA will be forced to accept being a bit player in the market. Though seemingly successful from the outside, AA is very likely losing money at LAX over the Pacific. One needs to only look at the hyper-competitive market and rock bottom fares; although from a network perspective it's simply too important for AA to give up. UA has much less to lose given its overwhelming dominance as a result of its stellar hub network and the SFO TPAC superhub. UA refocusing on LAX could really make things difficult for AA.

Jeremy

"Like TW focusing on the Caribbean, too little too late." Well, no. TW was dying and was losing its grip on Europe. They had no choice. UA isn't about to fold.

This is good to see. UA needs to focus on areas where they can grow. They already have a footprint at LAX. There are always growth opportunities. Maybe UA will add TLV.

With the new agreements for AA & DL, how many gates do UA, AA, & DL each have? I'm confused now.

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

Should we queue up speculation of a return to JFK as part of this too?

And if we are going in that direction of logic, what about a return to OAK?

hiflyeras wrote:

Even AS/VX might be carrying more passengers in 5-10 years than UA out of LAX.

LAWA publishes ready data.

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/LAX/s ... r-2016.pdf

AS+VX in 2016 carried barely 1/2 of UA's traffic at LAX: it was 5+ million passengers behind. AS+VX wasn't even a close #5 behind AA, DL, UA and WN.

If WN finally starts Hawaii services, SoCal may be the domestic industry battle of the decade.

Freshside3 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

Should we queue up speculation of a return to JFK as part of this too?

And if we are going in that direction of logic, what about a return to OAK?

If they are serious about domestic travel it is plausible we could see both of those. Although the real ideal situation for NYC would be lifting the perimeter rule so they could go transcontinental at LGA. Not likely at this point but someday.

TWA772LR wrote:

UA has near-exclusive use of 2, soon to be 3 terminals; and one, soon to be 2 FIS facilities. I'd say UA has a pretty decent set-up in LAX.

The T6/7 FIS is hardly exclusive. Today its shared with AS, CM, DL and will continue to be shared with at the very least with AS and any future T-6 tenants that will need FIS access.

FSDan wrote:

What are the hours of operation of UA's current T7 FIS at LAX? And how many gates are connected to it?

At moment believe its 1100-1600

Freshside3 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

With Kirby's focus being domestic flying, I would expect them to beef up that first at LAX to give UA a more appealing and pertinent schedule offering.

Top 10 O&Ds from LAX are:
NYC, SFO, CHI, SEA, DC, DFW, HNL, LAS, BOS, MIA/FLL, there is good room for them to grow frequency and even add new market such as MIA.
The next 10 top markets are DEN, ATL, SJC, OAK, PHX, MCO, IAH PDX, PHL, MSP.

Should we queue up speculation of a return to JFK as part of this too?

And if we are going in that direction of logic, what about a return to OAK?

They quickly responded to AS starting SJC-EWR with their own nonstop. Now WN is starting OAK-EWR, perhaps we'll see a response? Although it seems unlikely they'd go there before the three closer midcountry hubs. To reopen the station, you'd think it'd have to be a substantial operation to make it worth their while. Seems unlikely though.