United seems to have achieved an entirely new spirit of growth and willingness to fight under Kirby. Old network team seemed too focused only on retreating.

SFO is operationally(Wx/ATC/gates) challenged. This summer its been so bad it lead the with the highest percent of misconnects among UA hubs. (even worse than messy EWR).

UA can grow LAX at relative low cost while further building its West Coast presence, help take some of the pressure off from the traffic flow via SFO, while also building back O&D market capacity in LA.

Short of bigger changes at SFO in facilities or hub banking structure which today are timed primarily around international ops, UA hands are tied to a large degree at SFO. Also does not help AS/VX itself continues to grow at SFO that further puts operational pressure at the airport.

IPFreely wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

o More flying coming to LAX in 2018. Will back fill lost flying - example given was UAX to Medford. Also more Hawaii

With all that growth maybe LAX-MSP will come back.

I think you may see LAX - FLL or if they want to be different try LAX - PBI.

Jo8338 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

o More flying coming to LAX in 2018. Will back fill lost flying - example given was UAX to Medford. Also more Hawaii

With all that growth maybe LAX-MSP will come back.

I think you may see LAX - FLL or if they want to be different try LAX - PBI.

LAX-FLL is a huge bloodbath. UA would not survive against the premium pressure of mint or the low cost pressure of NK. there are sub $100 O/W fare all of throughout rest of this year on VX/B6.

I feel like ive seen this UA making an LAX push before (or was that AA). Dont think it will work. I love that DL is dominating at LAX and JFK. now if they could just continue to encroach on UA at SFO

gsg013 wrote:

I love that DL is dominating at LAX and JFK.

Largest airlines at LAX for 12 mo April 2016-March 2017:

1. American 11,265,000
2. Delta 9,579,000
3. Southwest 9,421,000
4. United 8,536,000

Interesting definition of "dominating".

tphuang wrote:

Jo8338 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

With all that growth maybe LAX-MSP will come back.

I think you may see LAX - FLL or if they want to be different try LAX - PBI.

LAX-FLL is a huge bloodbath. UA would not survive against the premium pressure of mint or the low cost pressure of NK. there are sub $100 O/W fare all of throughout rest of this year on VX/B6.

I assume the same that LAX-FLL is a bloodbath and LAX-PBI or LAX-MIA are non-starters. But interestingly enough UA hasn't scaled back ORD-FLL or EWR-FLL despite competition from NK, B6 and WN on both routes (WN is of course to MDW) and has stayed on SFO-FLL this whole time with B6 and VX competition. But LAX-FLL will likely be pure O&D making it riskier than the other routes (though SFO-FLL is not timed well for connections and the flight has survived as I said above).

I love how the DL fan-boys all say the same thing: Don't waste your time UA because DL has LAX and the West Coast sewn up. Time will tell if they are wrong or right. One thing for certain, its going to be a nice little war.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Jo8338 wrote:

I think you may see LAX - FLL or if they want to be different try LAX - PBI.

LAX-FLL is a huge bloodbath. UA would not survive against the premium pressure of mint or the low cost pressure of NK. there are sub $100 O/W fare all of throughout rest of this year on VX/B6.

I assume the same that LAX-FLL is a bloodbath and LAX-PBI or LAX-MIA are non-starters. But interestingly enough UA hasn't scaled back ORD-FLL or EWR-FLL despite competition from NK, B6 and WN on both routes (WN is of course to MDW) and has stayed on SFO-FLL this whole time with B6 and VX competition. But LAX-FLL will likely be pure O&D making it riskier than the other routes (though SFO-FLL is not timed well for connections and the flight has survived as I said above).

I think that has more to do with sfo ord ewr being more dominant hubs of ua. I really doubt ua is making any money matching nk fares on ewr fll. B6 is pretty small on ord fll.

And mint does pose a stronger threat to legacies since it's aimed at premium traffic which legacies usually get to cover matching lcc on y fares. Mia lax already has 9 daily from aa, so I don't think there is room for ua unless they are interested in fighting out with delta for low yielding traffic. I don't think any legacies can survive on the y fares we are seeing on fll lax without j fares to cover.

It's only been 4 months of mint on sfo fll. I don't expect ua to cut back due to their dominance at sfo, but my guess is quite a bit of premium traffic has moved to b6.

IPFreely wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

I love that DL is dominating at LAX and JFK.

Largest airlines at LAX for 12 mo April 2016-March 2017:

1. American 11,265,000
2. Delta 9,579,000
3. Southwest 9,421,000
4. United 8,536,000

Yep delta is dominating those 2 hubs so much that it has the 2nd worst schedule on nyc lax ahead of only vx since vx split traffic between JFK and ewr.

I wonder how is delta not even on ord lax if it's dominating in lax. Or having the worst schedule on bos lax and fll/Mia lax. Seems like it's dominated.

And having the lowest margin if you believe in Scott Kirby.

tphuang wrote:

Mia lax already has 9 daily from aa, so I don't think there is room for ua unless they are interested in fighting out with delta for low yielding traffic.

If AA has 9 flights between LAX and MIA, there is definitely market to be 'shared'. How many flights did UA have between LAX and DEN when AA and DL added DEN flights? Nothing stops any carrier from entering a (near) monopoly market of a competitor or even a hub-hub market of a competitor if they see some benefit. The more spokes even a smaller (UA) hub has, the more chances it has to be the choice of local travelers.

Canceling LAX-MSP might have been more of an issue of simply not having enough resources (planes and gates) to offer a competitive schedule. Instead of being an afterthought in a market, it might be better to simply move the plane somewhere where it can be put to better use.

jetblastdubai wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Mia lax already has 9 daily from aa, so I don't think there is room for ua unless they are interested in fighting out with delta for low yielding traffic.

If AA has 9 flights between LAX and MIA, there is definitely market to be 'shared'. How many flights did UA have between LAX and DEN when AA and DL added DEN flights? Nothing stops any carrier from entering a (near) monopoly market of a competitor or even a hub-hub market of a competitor if they see some benefit. The more spokes even a smaller (UA) hub has, the more chances it has to be the choice of local travelers.

Canceling LAX-MSP might have been more of an issue of simply not having enough resources (planes and gates) to offer a competitive schedule. Instead of being an afterthought in a market, it might be better to simply move the plane somewhere where it can be put to better use.

Yes but that route did not have b6 and vx with their much better j class option on the route also. Ua has struggled mightily against mint pressure.

Delta will larger presence in lax can't even keep year round service on this route. Hard to keep a transcon route going on sub 100 ticket with no premium traffic to South America helping to fill up the plane.

aaway wrote:

Frankly, I have little doubt that UA will "get" a T-9. I'm more interested in how many alliance partners come under that roof. The desire for more space is more about regaining some semblance of parity with facilities (particularly in regard to partner proximity) than about massive, organic growth.

Interesting that Kirby (and Flightglobal) mention Pacific N.W. destinations as (potential) targets. I can see it, though. The QX disruptions and effective dissolution of the AA-AS relationship creates an opportunity. UA typically maintains a strong #2 market presence in those small & mid-sized PNW markets.

Given the costs for just the bridge over Sepulveda, I doubt that LAWA would agree to build only enough gates in T9 just for United. Some combination of Alliance partners and other airlines will be necessary to justify the capital outlay and spread the risk.

tphuang wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

LAX-FLL is a huge bloodbath. UA would not survive against the premium pressure of mint or the low cost pressure of NK. there are sub $100 O/W fare all of throughout rest of this year on VX/B6.

I assume the same that LAX-FLL is a bloodbath and LAX-PBI or LAX-MIA are non-starters. But interestingly enough UA hasn't scaled back ORD-FLL or EWR-FLL despite competition from NK, B6 and WN on both routes (WN is of course to MDW) and has stayed on SFO-FLL this whole time with B6 and VX competition. But LAX-FLL will likely be pure O&D making it riskier than the other routes (though SFO-FLL is not timed well for connections and the flight has survived as I said above).

I think that has more to do with sfo ord ewr being more dominant hubs of ua. I really doubt ua is making any money matching nk fares on ewr fll. B6 is pretty small on ord fll.

And mint does pose a stronger threat to legacies since it's aimed at premium traffic which legacies usually get to cover matching lcc on y fares. Mia lax already has 9 daily from aa, so I don't think there is room for ua unless they are interested in fighting out with delta for low yielding traffic. I don't think any legacies can survive on the y fares we are seeing on fll lax without j fares to cover.

It's only been 4 months of mint on sfo fll. I don't expect ua to cut back due to their dominance at sfo, but my guess is quite a bit of premium traffic has moved to b6.

Great point about Mint. I was thinking LAX-FLL could use a network carrier because AA and DL both flew the route for many years (AA for over a decade much of that time with multiple dalies) but your point about Mint is well taken. B6 now can cover the LCC and network side (meaning premium passengers) of LAX-FLL and SFO-FLL thanks to the Mint product. In fact I know AA is concerned slightly some LAX-MIA or SFO-MIA passengers might defect to Mint out of FLL - small numbers but still perhaps some will or already have.

I see short term LAX domestic build up centered around following:

1) Western US (likely UAX) feeder routes for Intl/Hawaii services which also serves to help relieve SFO
2) Midcon/Transcon markets that already generate good volume of LAX destined connex over hubs
3) Reenter some local top O&D markets depending if it means winning corporate traffic.

I see UA largely ignoring OAL hubs like MSP. During his presentation he explained by UA would never be big or very successful on LAX-DFW as an example. Analogy is just as apt to MSP also.

Remember UA already has high gate utilization at LAX so there is not exactly lots of room to add too much more flying even when all T7/8 renovation work is complete in 2018.

ldvaviation wrote:

aaway wrote:

Frankly, I have little doubt that UA will "get" a T-9. I'm more interested in how many alliance partners come under that roof. The desire for more space is more about regaining some semblance of parity with facilities (particularly in regard to partner proximity) than about massive, organic growth.

Interesting that Kirby (and Flightglobal) mention Pacific N.W. destinations as (potential) targets. I can see it, though. The QX disruptions and effective dissolution of the AA-AS relationship creates an opportunity. UA typically maintains a strong #2 market presence in those small & mid-sized PNW markets.

Given the costs for just the bridge over Sepulveda, I doubt that LAWA would agree to build only enough gates in T9 just for United. Some combination of Alliance partners and other airlines will be necessary to justify the capital outlay and spread the risk.

In speaking with some of the LAWA folks, it sounds like United have indeed pitched T9 as a partner facility. If true, will be interesting to see which odd men out are sent out to Midfield. I'm assuming the cats and dogs in T5 once AA inevitably completes that takeover to achieve parity with DL's two terminal facility + TBIT gates.

Given the costs for just the bridge over Sepulveda, I doubt that LAWA would agree to build only enough gates in T9 just for United. Some combination of Alliance partners and other airlines will be necessary to justify the capital outlay and spread the risk.[/quote]

Do you really expect anyone besides yourself to be leave that? If UA wants to write the check, LAWA will do what ever they are asked to do. There are plenty of investors out there who will scoop up the debt floated by UA to finance their portion and T9 will be build.

On a separate note, I really see the addition of T9 as UA making a statement about dominance at LAX. They will have 3 of the 9 terminals at the airport and with in excess of 30+ gates, their own terminals, custom's facilities that will take a lot of pressure off SFO and put plenty of pressure on AA and DL.

winginit wrote:

In speaking with some of the LAWA folks, it sounds like United have indeed pitched T9 as a partner facility. If true, will be interesting to see which odd men out are sent out to Midfield. I'm assuming the cats and dogs in T5 once AA inevitably completes that takeover to achieve parity with DL's two terminal facility + TBIT gates.

727200 wrote:

On a separate note, I really see the addition of T9 as UA making a statement about dominance at LAX. They will have 3 of the 9 terminals at the airport and with in excess of 30+ gates, their own terminals, custom's facilities that will take a lot of pressure off SFO and put plenty of pressure on AA and DL.

Well again, sure, United can pour more capacity into LAX on top of AA and Delta, and Southwest and Alaska, and on top of its own flying in and out of SFO, but of course in addition to "put[ting] plenty of pressure" on AA and Delta financial performance at LAX, it will undoubtedly pressure United's own financial performance at LAX, and possibly to an extent also up at SFO. The real question is the ability of United management, or perhaps more specifically United investors, to stomach that self-inflicted financial degradation.

LAXintl wrote:

I see short term LAX domestic build up centered around following:

3) Reenter some local top O&D markets depending if it means winning corporate traffic.

IMO, not technically "re-entering" but PHX, LAS and SLC, each with 3 flights per day isn't competitive by any metric when compared to any competitor. On these shorter, high-volume routes, frequency is probably a big factor in gaining any corporate traffic. 6-8 per day, even on E175s, would almost be a minimum number to be convenient for most business travelers.

LAXintl wrote:

I see short term LAX domestic build up centered around following:

1) Western US (likely UAX) feeder routes for Intl/Hawaii services which also serves to help relieve SFO
2) Midcon/Transcon markets that already generate good volume of LAX destined connex over hubs
3) Reenter some local top O&D markets depending if it means winning corporate traffic.

I see UA largely ignoring OAL hubs like MSP. During his presentation he explained by UA would never be big or very successful on LAX-DFW as an example. Analogy is just as apt to MSP also.

Remember UA already has high gate utilization at LAX so there is not exactly lots of room to add too much more flying even when all T7/8 renovation work is complete in 2018.

Well, DFW-LAX is much, MUCH larger than LAX-MSP. UA has been flying it for years.

winginit wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

aaway wrote:

Frankly, I have little doubt that UA will "get" a T-9. I'm more interested in how many alliance partners come under that roof. The desire for more space is more about regaining some semblance of parity with facilities (particularly in regard to partner proximity) than about massive, organic growth.

Interesting that Kirby (and Flightglobal) mention Pacific N.W. destinations as (potential) targets. I can see it, though. The QX disruptions and effective dissolution of the AA-AS relationship creates an opportunity. UA typically maintains a strong #2 market presence in those small & mid-sized PNW markets.

Given the costs for just the bridge over Sepulveda, I doubt that LAWA would agree to build only enough gates in T9 just for United. Some combination of Alliance partners and other airlines will be necessary to justify the capital outlay and spread the risk.

In speaking with some of the LAWA folks, it sounds like United have indeed pitched T9 as a partner facility. If true, will be interesting to see which odd men out are sent out to Midfield. I'm assuming the cats and dogs in T5 once AA inevitably completes that takeover to achieve parity with DL's two terminal facility + TBIT gates.

Would make perfect sense to co-locate UAs JV partners under one roof...NH, NZ, AC, LH, OS, LX along with UA international and even some domestic flights would probably do a good job of filling a 9 or 10 gate terminal.

ldvaviation wrote:

aaway wrote:

Frankly, I have little doubt that UA will "get" a T-9. I'm more interested in how many alliance partners come under that roof. The desire for more space is more about regaining some semblance of parity with facilities (particularly in regard to partner proximity) than about massive, organic growth.

Interesting that Kirby (and Flightglobal) mention Pacific N.W. destinations as (potential) targets. I can see it, though. The QX disruptions and effective dissolution of the AA-AS relationship creates an opportunity. UA typically maintains a strong #2 market presence in those small & mid-sized PNW markets.

Given the costs for just the bridge over Sepulveda, I doubt that LAWA would agree to build only enough gates in T9 just for United. Some combination of Alliance partners and other airlines will be necessary to justify the capital outlay and spread the risk.

Hey LDV! Hope all is well with you.

I'm curious about your notion(s) regarding the bridge. I think I know where you might be going....but I also think you may be complicating it a bit.

commavia wrote:

Well again, sure, United can pour more capacity into LAX on top of AA and Delta, and Southwest and Alaska, and on top of its own flying in and out of SFO, but of course in addition to "put[ting] plenty of pressure" on AA and Delta financial performance at LAX, it will undoubtedly pressure United's own financial performance at LAX, and possibly to an extent also up at SFO. The real question is the ability of United management, or perhaps more specifically United investors, to stomach that self-inflicted financial degradation.

Precisely - this is exactly the scenario that played out in the late 90s/early 00s build-up of LAX. When connect traffic became more integral to the build-up, UA found itself competing with itself. In California, UA was already the 'market leader' (either on a % of total traffic basis, or, regional segment(s) basis) at nearly all of the small & mid-sized UA/UAX cities. There just wasn't any additional market share to grow by adding flow ex-LAX.

I'm of the belief that the advent and implementation of more sophisticated analytical tools in the mid-2000s helped UA to better understand the opportunity cost(s) associated with that build-up. And, of course, there were exigent factors that wielded influence.

Kirby brings a fresh pair of eyes to a landscape that really hasn't changed as radically as we sometimes think. The players are bigger - now versus then - and have more capital to toss around.

In the end, it was - and remains - that SFO was/is the superior market, and UA was/is best positioned to exploit that franchise.

There is a huge O & D market from south Florida to LAX. AA is losing premium traffic to Mint. If the flights would be properly timed UA could compete for premium traffic.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Well, DFW-LAX is much, MUCH larger than LAX-MSP. UA has been flying it for years.

His point had nothing to do with size.

In short summary, his point was flying between two competitor hubs is a losing proposition and a competitor will be quite handicapped while doing so. So ones choice is either pack it up and leave or if its of some other strategic value accept reality and the potential financial loss.

There is a bit more back story to LA-DFW specifically on UA. If surrounding circumstances change, route could very well go bye-bye one day.

United1 wrote:

Would make perfect sense to co-locate UAs JV partners under one roof...NH, NZ, AC, LH, OS, LX along with UA international and even some domestic flights would probably do a good job of filling a 9 or 10 gate terminal.

Naturally, it's exactly what DL are doing with their 2023 Sky Way at LAX project - uniting all of their partners under a single facility with consolidated check-in, security screening, lounge accommodation, and gating

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.

UA did run PDX-LAX a long while back on SkyWest CRJ-200ER jets...

FA9295 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.

UA did run PDX-LAX a long while back on SkyWest CRJ-200ER jets...

In the 80s/90s they ran several mainline flights per day, including 757s, etc. Then by early 2014 they were down to a single daily CR2 which was eventually dropped. Would love to get this route back given the number of star alliance connection options at LAX.

Heck, even SEA is down to just 2x E75 per day. Pretty pathetic offering to the 4th largest O&D market out of LAX. UA will need to step it up in some of these key western markets if they truly do want to be a competitor.

rwsea wrote:

FA9295 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.

UA did run PDX-LAX a long while back on SkyWest CRJ-200ER jets...

In the 80s/90s they ran several mainline flights per day, including 757s, etc. Then by early 2014 they were down to a single daily CR2 which was eventually dropped. Would love to get this route back given the number of star alliance connection options at LAX.

Heck, even SEA is down to just 2x E75 per day. Pretty pathetic offering to the 4th largest O&D market out of LAX. UA will need to step it up in some of these key western markets if they truly do want to be a competitor.

I always see posts on airliners that seem to correlate overall competitiveness in a market or on a city pair and the aircraft type flown. Personally, I like many on this website often choose routings based on aircraft type. But I'm an avgeek like most on this site.

Is there consumer data that actually backs the assertions that UA, or any other airline is more or less competitive than the next because they fly a/c type X over Y ? Based on my experience, most of my seat mates over the years have zero clue on what plane type they are sitting in let alone know what they're looking for when they book.

Now I understand that frequent fliers may pick up on what airline is flying what, where but I would posit that travelers flying frequently enough to gain this understanding are closer to the pointy end of the plane where differences in a/c type are less likely to be a factor, especially these days where Express/Connection flights offer nearly the same amenities as mainline aircraft. For those travelers towards the back of the plane, a smaller aircraft has its advantages. Quicker boarding a deplaning for one. That said, there are certainly noticeable difference between a 50 CR2 or ERJ and a 737 or 320but a lot less in the way of noticeable differences between a CR7/9 and a E70/75.

I would posit that frequency and/or schedule influence overall competitiveness more so than plane type when ticket price is less relevant. But I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone could produce the consumer data. It would actually be quite interesting to see what factors (besides price) are taken into consideration by Joe Public when choosing an airline.

77H

For me, the big test about how serious UA is about LAX will come during the next recession, which I think is (at most) about two years away.

Right now, traffic is so strong that UA can fill their flights at both SFO and LAX. However, what will happen when traffic and yields plunge, as they do in every recession, especially if the traffic and yield drops are accompanied by a spike in jet fuel prices? At that point, UA will have to choose between having low yields and empty seats at two hubs 350 miles away, or concentrating their resources at their strongest hub, SFO.

At the risk of going OT, I see the same thing happening on the east coast, where AA has a strong hub at PHL and a weak hub at JFK, and UA has a strong hub at EWR and an iffy hub at IAD. I would be shocked if UA's LAX hub, AA's JFK hub, and UA's IAD hub make it through the looming recession without major schedule reductions.

LAXintl wrote:

I see short term LAX domestic build up centered around following:

1) Western US (likely UAX) feeder routes for Intl/Hawaii services which also serves to help relieve SFO
2) Midcon/Transcon markets that already generate good volume of LAX destined connex over hubs
3) Reenter some local top O&D markets depending if it means winning corporate traffic.

I see UA largely ignoring OAL hubs like MSP. During his presentation he explained by UA would never be big or very successful on LAX-DFW as an example. Analogy is just as apt to MSP also.

Remember UA already has high gate utilization at LAX so there is not exactly lots of room to add too much more flying even when all T7/8 renovation work is complete in 2018.

If United is serious about LAX, I would think they need to get back in the game with some of their Transcons as well. PHL-LAX and BOS-LAX are two that come to mind. They completely gave up on PHL-LAX a few years ago (a market they formerly offered 2x daily nonstop in) and do 2 RT BOS-LAX by summer and 1 RT by winter. BWI, ATL, and MSY are all either gone or at best 1 redeye. These are all fair sized markets.

Might do with a 320 or 737;doubt it will be anything more than that and probably not .2x. Its an AA stronghold, planes can best be used somewhere else.

gwrudolph wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I see short term LAX domestic build up centered around following:

1) Western US (likely UAX) feeder routes for Intl/Hawaii services which also serves to help relieve SFO
2) Midcon/Transcon markets that already generate good volume of LAX destined connex over hubs
3) Reenter some local top O&D markets depending if it means winning corporate traffic.

I see UA largely ignoring OAL hubs like MSP. During his presentation he explained by UA would never be big or very successful on LAX-DFW as an example. Analogy is just as apt to MSP also.

Remember UA already has high gate utilization at LAX so there is not exactly lots of room to add too much more flying even when all T7/8 renovation work is complete in 2018.

If United is serious about LAX, I would think they need to get back in the game with some of their Transcons as well. PHL-LAX and BOS-LAX are two that come to mind. They completely gave up on PHL-LAX a few years ago (a market they formerly offered 2x daily nonstop in) and do 2 RT BOS-LAX by summer and 1 RT by winter. BWI, ATL, and MSY are all either gone or at best 1 redeye. These are all fair sized markets.

UA used to offer 3x on LAX-PHL, going back at least 15-20 years. I agree with your point, but PHL-LAX/SFO are becoming battleground markets as of late. Not that long ago AA/US had a monopoly on PHL-LAX and only had to deal with 2x UA on PHL-SFO

S18
LAX:
AA: 5x 321, 1x 332
NK: 1x 320
AS: 1x 320

SFO:
AA: 6x 321
UA: 3x 319/320/73x variety
AS: 1x 319

727200 wrote:

Do you really expect anyone besides yourself to be leave that? If UA wants to write the check, LAWA will do what ever they are asked to do. There are plenty of investors out there who will scoop up the debt floated by UA to finance their portion and T9 will be build.

On a separate note, I really see the addition of T9 as UA making a statement about dominance at LAX. They will have 3 of the 9 terminals at the airport and with in excess of 30+ gates, their own terminals, custom's facilities that will take a lot of pressure off SFO and put plenty of pressure on AA and DL.

That's not how thing work around here. UA and its partners will have to front the money. But it is LAWA that will have to float the debt to reimburse United for the capital improvements. LAWA is currently spending a lot of money and taking on a lot of debt. At some point soon, that is going to become a hindrance to any future project.

United does not have the market share now to justify 30+ gates. LAWA isn't going to assign them 30+ gates just because Kirby has delusions of grandeur. He already tried that at LAX with AA. It didn't work.

FA9295 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.

UA did run PDX-LAX a long while back on SkyWest CRJ-200ER jets...

Shoot in the late 1990’s they used to run 3x737’s PDX-LAX!

727200 wrote:

Might do with a 320 or 737;doubt it will be anything more than that and probably not .2x. Its an AA stronghold, planes can best be used somewhere else.

I don't disagree with you guys that it will be a challenge given the AA presence in PHL, but almost every option someone brings up on here falls back to "they won't be able to compete in that market" or it is already a "bloodbath." How will UA get back into the game at LAX, if there are no new markets where they can effectively compete (or better places to utilize the asset).

Summarizing the situation:

Hearing Not a good chance of competing: DFW, MIA, MSP, PDX, LAS, PHX, BOS, PHL, ATL, JFK
Already a fair (or in some cases big) player in the market SFO, ORD, IAH, EWR, IAD, DEN, MCO, CLE, HNL, OGG, KOA, LIH, LHR, SIN, NRT, SYD, MEL, SEA

Not a heck of a lot of meaningful markets they don't already serve that are left . . .

LAXintl wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Well, DFW-LAX is much, MUCH larger than LAX-MSP. UA has been flying it for years.

His point had nothing to do with size.

In short summary, his point was flying between two competitor hubs is a losing proposition and a competitor will be quite handicapped while doing so. So ones choice is either pack it up and leave or if its of some other strategic value accept reality and the potential financial loss.

There is a bit more back story to LA-DFW specifically on UA. If surrounding circumstances change, route could very well go bye-bye one day.

That basically puts the entire argument underwater. UA is going to refocus on LA and eliminate one of its largest domestic markets? No sense made whatsoever.

Several people up thread have commented on how DL out maneuvered Kirby when he was at AA.

How did DL do this?

Only the DL BB's promote that theory. Butt then, they think the world rises and sets on the widget.

ldvaviation wrote:

....That's not how thing work around here. UA and its partners will have to front the money. But it is LAWA that will have to float the debt to reimburse United for the capital improvements. LAWA is currently spending a lot of money and taking on a lot of debt. At some point soon, that is going to become a hindrance to any future project.

I think that if you consider the alternatives, a UA backed T-9 is likely the easiest approach. The capital markets will view favorably UA's credit quality & breadth of operations. The other (publically) floated idea - building T-9 for unaligned carriers - carries more financial risk.

Assuming LAWA remains disinterested in further terminal construction, that places responsibility on small(er) carriers. I doubt any of them have the financial capacity individually to be on record.

If that were the only route to construction, I'm thinking that some form of PPP gets the terminal built. Upon completion, operations & management goes to a facilities management organization or consortium.

So UA recent addition(in some cases resuming) service to 4 markets for spring/summer 2018 from LAX

> Kalispell, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Medford, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Missoula, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Redmond, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Embraer E170 jets.

The rumor mill is that another longhaul route is also planned for LAX for summer 2018.

janders wrote:

So UA recent addition(in some cases resuming) service to 4 markets for spring/summer 2018 from LAX

> Kalispell, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Medford, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Missoula, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Redmond, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Embraer E170 jets.

The rumor mill is that another longhaul route is also planned for LAX for summer 2018.

LAX-OKC is going
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1380737

janders wrote:

So UA recent addition(in some cases resuming) service to 4 markets for spring/summer 2018 from LAX

> Kalispell, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Medford, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Missoula, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Redmond, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Embraer E170 jets.

The rumor mill is that another longhaul route is also planned for LAX for summer 2018.

I'll throw in my speculation;

TLV, AKL, BNE, GRU, PPT

janders wrote:

So UA recent addition(in some cases resuming) service to 4 markets for spring/summer 2018 from LAX

> Kalispell, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Medford, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Missoula, Mont.: Seasonal; one daily round-trip flight begins June 7. Flights will be on Bombardier CRJ regional jets.
> Redmond, Ore.: Two daily flights begin April 9. Flights will be on Embraer E170 jets.

The rumor mill is that another longhaul route is also planned for LAX for summer 2018.

I'll throw in my speculation;

TLV, AKL, BNE, GRU, PPT

Yes a new old longhaul route should be announced for summer 2018.

Also by late Q1 the T7/8 terminal renovation project ends and will finally give UA access to all 21 gates.

LAXintl wrote:

Yes a new old longhaul route should be announced for summer 2018.

I'll place my bet on HKG.

LAXintl wrote:

Yes a new old longhaul route should be announced for summer 2018.

Also by late Q1 the T7/8 terminal renovation project ends and will finally give UA access to all 21 gates.

Hmmm.

CDG, FRA, HKG, AKL, KIX?

Maybe it’s time they restart LAX-DSM. The last time UA tried this route was summer 2008 with CR7s. At that time fuel prices were through the roof and the economy was tanking.

Des Moines has been growing like crazy, emplacements at the airport are at record highs and growing, LA is the biggest destination without nonstop service (not counting the twice weekly G4 flights in the summer), fuel prices are still relatively low, and this could easily be flown with an E175. UA has a big customer base in DSM. I could see them make it work.

CDG and Hong Kong have been tried before with lousy results, why do again what has not worked in the recent past ?

I would say FRA, CDG, ICN, TPE, BNE, TLV, all seem like reasonable guesses for a new long haul.

jfk777 wrote:

CDG and Hong Kong have been tried before with lousy results, why do again what has not worked in the recent past ?

UA's very low-density 763s probably weren't the right airplane for CDG. Perhaps the 788 would do better.