Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
hoons90 wrote:UA has really receded its presence at ICN. As of October, UA will only have a single daily 772 flight to ICN from SFO.
At one point several years ago, UA sent 3x daily 777/744 mix to ICN.
UA does very well in other Asian markets, but it seems like that the Korean market just doesn't work for them.
Never mind a potential EWR/ORD-ICN, this makes me wonder if even the existing SFO flight is at risk of being dropped, as UA has actually done multiple times over the years.
hoons90 wrote:UA has really receded its presence at ICN. As of October, UA will only have a single daily 772 flight to ICN from SFO.
At one point several years ago, UA sent 3x daily 777/744 mix to ICN.
UA does very well in other Asian markets, but it seems like that the Korean market just doesn't work for them.
Never mind a potential EWR/ORD-ICN, this makes me wonder if even the existing SFO flight is at risk of being dropped, as UA has actually done multiple times over the years.
hoons90 wrote:UA has really receded its presence at ICN. As of October, UA will only have a single daily 772 flight to ICN from SFO.
At one point several years ago, UA sent 3x daily 777/744 mix to ICN.
UA does very well in other Asian markets, but it seems like that the Korean market just doesn't work for them.
Never mind a potential EWR/ORD-ICN, this makes me wonder if even the existing SFO flight is at risk of being dropped, as UA has actually done multiple times over the years.
rwsea wrote:hoons90 wrote:UA has really receded its presence at ICN. As of October, UA will only have a single daily 772 flight to ICN from SFO.
ICN is a tough market in general for US Carriers, given the strong international networks of KE and OZ. Both carriers offer very competitive and reasonable fares
LAXintl wrote:planned return of 3 of 11 GUM base 737 aircraft to the mainland effective November.
UA says it can achieve higher utilization of the 737 frames on the mainland as it pursues plans to grow its domestic network.
intotheair wrote:and whatever else is left can be absorbed with NH.
hoons90 wrote:intotheair wrote:and whatever else is left can be absorbed with NH.
Unfortunately, NH no longer flies NRT-ICN.
NH flies HND-GMP, which limits the breadth of connections from the USA that can be served via HND to Seoul.
OZ, however, does fly NRT-ICN, but they are not a metal-neutral partner, so UA will have much less leverage over pricing, etc.
Disappointing situation for those who are loyal to UA and also frequent ICN, but if UA has bigger fish to fry, so be it.
smi0006 wrote:What was UAs Asian tags back in the hay day out of NRT?
OneSexyL1011 wrote:I am wondering what impact the 3 A/C going back to the mainland mean to the Guam hub than the ICN-NRT route. 3 out of 11 frames is a decent cut in flying....
LAXdude1023 wrote:That said, they MUST serve ICN. If youre a carrier that is intent on being a premier carrier in Asia, serving ICN is mandatory. Its like wanting to be big in Europe and not serving CDG. Since they do have to serve ICN, SFO is the only logical place.
nonrevelite wrote:There will not be a flight impact other than ICN. The remaining fleet will be able to cover all other flights, albeit one or two exists flights will have to be re-timed.
FSDan wrote:It was weird seeing one less-than-daily flight on a 738 between such large markets, especially when just about every connection from the U.S. to ICN that is currently served over NRT could also be facilitated over SFO.
commavia wrote:No big surprise - it makes sense. The scheduling and utilization required to get that 737 back and forth between ICN and NRT at times that were relevant for connections at NRT no doubt rendered the economics untenable. I don't doubt United's point that those aircraft can be redeployed with higher utilization, and generating greater economic value, elsewhere in the network. That said, I agree with others that it certainly is sad to see essentially the last remnant of United's historic Pan Am intra-Asia network - already greatly diminished as just a daily 737 compared to what it once was, to be sure - gone.LAXdude1023 wrote:That said, they MUST serve ICN. If youre a carrier that is intent on being a premier carrier in Asia, serving ICN is mandatory. Its like wanting to be big in Europe and not serving CDG. Since they do have to serve ICN, SFO is the only logical place.
Indeed. ICN today is one of the largest and most important business markets in the world, and especially and East Asia. It's a market that United, the dominant U.S. carrier in Asia, must be in. SFO is the logical gateway, even if it's United's only one - it's a mega hub perfectly-situated geographically to draw in connections from all across United's domestic network.nonrevelite wrote:There will not be a flight impact other than ICN. The remaining fleet will be able to cover all other flights, albeit one or two exists flights will have to be re-timed.
Interesting - I'll be curious to see how that plays out in practice. I suppose that is consistent with the aforementioned internal memo's discussion on the GUM fleet's utilization, but that's pretty remarkable nonetheless if United can remove over a quarter of the GUM 737 fleet and only cut a single flight. The way the 737 is scheduled over NRT to do ICN today, NRT-ICN effectively takes up one aircraft worth of utilization, and the bridging 737 flight GUM-NRT to get it there takes up another.
jco613 wrote:Admittedly I don't know as much about the flight times as I should, but I believe the aircraft utilization for the Micronesia flights are VERY light just due to the odd routes, so this isn't totally out of the realm of possibility.
Polot wrote:The problem is SFO is not a great connecting point to ICN from the eastern US. That is partially why UA is still operating HKG-SIN despite the SFO nonstop. But who knows, maybe UA is looking at adding ORD-ICN or EWR-ICN.
jetblastdubai wrote:DEN, on the other hand, feeds a large number of domestic markets that SFO doesn't and is probably the easiest/least risky UA hub to connect through 99% of the time.
commavia wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:DEN, on the other hand, feeds a large number of domestic markets that SFO doesn't and is probably the easiest/least risky UA hub to connect through 99% of the time.
... except that it's probably the smallest local market to/from ICN of all of United's hubs. If United is going to add another flight nonstop from the U.S. to ICN, I agree that ORD or EWR are the obvious choices. That said, I still think SFO is a perfectly fine hub for connecting United's domestic network to ICN. It is arguably a bit "out of the way" for some connections, particularly from the east coast, but in terms of overall schedule connectivity (departure and arrival times both westbound and eastbound), I don't think SFO is all that much worse than alternative connecting options.
FSDan wrote:commavia wrote:
I think EWR-ICN would fit well into UA's Pacfic network. As others have mentioned, the large local market and lack of direct competition seem to set it up for success. It could be a good route when some 789s eventually make it to EWR.
TWA772LR wrote:Hard to believe that UA can't fill a 738 between NRT and ICN with connections from the US.
TWA772LR wrote:Would the Koreans be open to allowing a handful of international flights arrive into Gimpo like the Japanese opened up HND?
TWA772LR wrote:That is probably their largest hole across the Pacific. I've even said that since the CO days.
peterj324 wrote:Does anyone know the current UA schedule out of Guam? I'm very curious where it stands with the recent reductions.
FSDan wrote:I think EWR-ICN would fit well into UA's Pacfic network. As others have mentioned, the large local market and lack of direct competition seem to set it up for success. It could be a good route when some 789s eventually make it to EWR.
commavia wrote:TWA772LR wrote:
Already happened - quite some time ago. GMP already receives multiple daily international flights from other nearby "close-in" metro airports in northeast Asia, including HND in Tokyo, PEK in Beijing, SHA in Shanghai and TSA in Taipei. The dense coverage linking those four major northeast Asian urban airports is, however, largely the sovereign terrain of the national flag carriers from those countries - I doubt any of them would be particularly interested in helping a U.S. carrier enter any of those routes. And, again, there would still not be any major business rationale for United to do it - there doesn't appear to be much of a market for NRT-GMP.
.
NichCage wrote:I do find it really strange that UA doesn't fly between EWR and ICN. Not Even OZ or KE fly the route.
.
TWA772LR wrote:Hard to believe that UA can't fill a 738 between NRT and ICN with connections from the US. Maybe a 116-seat 73G would help? Does UA still have 73Gs out in GUM?
United787 wrote:Could this mean that UA will be starting ORD-ICN or EWR-ICN?
globalcabotage wrote:If UA was going to start ICN-ORD/EWR, they would have done it by now. ICN is the missing link at ORD and EWR, but UA must have a reason not to run it. Their loss at ORD is KEs gain.
intotheair wrote:globalcabotage wrote:If UA was going to start ICN-ORD/EWR, they would have done it by now. ICN is the missing link at ORD and EWR, but UA must have a reason not to run it. Their loss at ORD is KEs gain.
One theory I had is that the Korean population (both in SK and in the U.S.) seem to be very loyal to OZ and KE, so I would venture to guess that any U.S. airline that tries flying into ICN probably has to focus on the American, non-Korean point of sale. How much of a market is that? Can't be too big if OZ and KE have gobbled up almost everything.
Newbiepilot wrote:smi0006 wrote:What was UAs Asian tags back in the hay day out of NRT?
gwr wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:smi0006 wrote:What was UAs Asian tags back in the hay day out of NRT?
Very cool old route map. At its peak, United also flew (albeit for only a short period of time) from NRT to GUM and SPN. I believe they also flew NRT-TPE for many years.
globalcabotage wrote:If UA was going to start ICN-ORD/EWR, they would have done it by now. ICN is the missing link at ORD and EWR, but UA must have a reason not to run it. Their loss at ORD is KEs gain.