LAXdude1023 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Mentioned before (gates), but quite interesting quotes/statistics.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-449043/
"Already in 2018, flights at Denver are scheduled to increase by 3.3% year-over-year, and seats by 3.5%, FlightGlobal schedule data shows. United is scheduled to increase flights by 10.9% and seats by 7.2%, while Southwest will reduce flights by 1.7% and seats by 0.5%."
UA growing faster than WN......

"Denver's future is akin to what Hartsfield is for Delta," United chief executive Oscar Munoz told local employees during the week of 7 May. "[Denver is] going to be for United the Hartsfield."
I'd like to see that, but I doubt UA can ever turn DEN into a fortress.
For comparison, short haul feed routes (DEN-ABQ on UA compared to ATL-SAV on DL) diverge widely on capacity.
DEN-ABQ in November (approximate) 1x ERJ, 1x CR7, 1x 319, 1x 739
ATL-SAV in November 11x MD88. (11x daily mainline!)
Quite the disparity, also UA at DEN is around 1/3 the size of DL at ATL in terms of seat capacity. Don't see that changing anytime soon.

Im not sure if his statements are pandering or ignorance. DEN will never be ATL. EVER. On a domestic level, it might be able to get within 90% of number of destinations served. On an international level, ATL will dwarf DEN until eternity.

Love his ambition, but WN wants a fortress at DEN to!!! Bring in the tanks...err planes...

FlightLevel360 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

I'm sorry if anyone mentioned this already, but isn't there an EWR-PIT flight that switches over to mainline next month? If so, how long will this last?

1 hr 28 mins according to United.com.

Oh my god, I am so sorry! I meant to phrase the question as "How long will the mainline flights between EWR and PIT remain in the schedule," not the actual duration of the flight!

xD

Starts June 7th. 1x daily B73G alongside the multiple Republic 170/175s on the route. It is permanent.

MSPNWA wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im not sure if his statements are pandering or ignorance. DEN will never be ATL. EVER. On a domestic level, it might be able to get within 90% of number of destinations served. On an international level, ATL will dwarf DEN until eternity.

Context. In that context, it's conceivable that DEN could be that airport. It's UA's best opportunity to be a dominant, high-traffic connecting hub.

How?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im not sure if his statements are pandering or ignorance. DEN will never be ATL. EVER. On a domestic level, it might be able to get within 90% of number of destinations served. On an international level, ATL will dwarf DEN until eternity.

Context. In that context, it's conceivable that DEN could be that airport. It's UA's best opportunity to be a dominant, high-traffic connecting hub.

Hot off the presses, UA to add 2nd daily between SFO and OMA
OMA-SFO
0745-0940 E175
1455-1650 E175

SFO-OMA
0840-1415 E175
1735-2310 E175

http://www.omaha.com/money/united-airli ... 869a7.html

LAXdude1023 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Mentioned before (gates), but quite interesting quotes/statistics.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-449043/
"Already in 2018, flights at Denver are scheduled to increase by 3.3% year-over-year, and seats by 3.5%, FlightGlobal schedule data shows. United is scheduled to increase flights by 10.9% and seats by 7.2%, while Southwest will reduce flights by 1.7% and seats by 0.5%."
UA growing faster than WN......

"Denver's future is akin to what Hartsfield is for Delta," United chief executive Oscar Munoz told local employees during the week of 7 May. "[Denver is] going to be for United the Hartsfield."
I'd like to see that, but I doubt UA can ever turn DEN into a fortress.
For comparison, short haul feed routes (DEN-ABQ on UA compared to ATL-SAV on DL) diverge widely on capacity.
DEN-ABQ in November (approximate) 1x ERJ, 1x CR7, 1x 319, 1x 739
ATL-SAV in November 11x MD88. (11x daily mainline!)
Quite the disparity, also UA at DEN is around 1/3 the size of DL at ATL in terms of seat capacity. Don't see that changing anytime soon.

Im not sure if his statements are pandering or ignorance. DEN will never be ATL. EVER. On a domestic level, it might be able to get within 90% of number of destinations served. On an international level, ATL will dwarf DEN until eternity.

Everyone is taking that comment too literally. They want DEN to function as DL’s ATL. They want to grow domestic connections at DEN, the cheapest hub. This will reduce strain on the more congested hubs to focus them on O&D/premium routes.

I think everyone agrees that United won’t be around 1,000 flights a day like ATL. But by getting to around 550-600 they will be able to replicate the function of ATL on a smaller scale.

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think everyone agrees that United won’t be around 1,000 flights a day like ATL. But by getting to around 550-600 they will be able to replicate the function of ATL on a smaller scale.

Geography works to a big advantage for ATL. The number of markets within 500 NM of ATL dwarfs the number of markets within the same range of DEN.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=500nm%40den,+500nm%40atl

I would love to see LEX-DEN

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

jetero wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

According to CVGComair, CVG-IAH sees an upgauge to a mainline A320 on one frequency in July. Very close in upgrade but service is down to 3x daily, and I believe 50 seat jets are back in the schedule for CVG. It had been all 70+ seat planes for a while for UA.

I am only seeing <=50 seaters to fill in frequency on Saturdays. It looks like the normal schedule is still all CRJ-700/ERJ-170 or above.

Yes only 4 ERJ frequencies for the month.

Last time I checked though CLE remains heavily ERJ, which is a head scratcher, but I guess everyone is funneled through ORD.

Not everyone. If I'm traveling from CLE to anywhere and its not non-stop, I refuse to take UA---I'll either connect in DTW on DL or even AA at ORD. But I'm not going to give UA a dime to be routed through anywhere---even if UA is the cheapest option.

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think everyone agrees that United won’t be around 1,000 flights a day like ATL. But by getting to around 550-600 they will be able to replicate the function of ATL on a smaller scale.

So, in other words, it’ll be just like today, but busier ...

greenair727 wrote:

jetero wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

I am only seeing <=50 seaters to fill in frequency on Saturdays. It looks like the normal schedule is still all CRJ-700/ERJ-170 or above.

Yes only 4 ERJ frequencies for the month.

Last time I checked though CLE remains heavily ERJ, which is a head scratcher, but I guess everyone is funneled through ORD.

Not everyone. If I'm traveling from CLE to anywhere and its not non-stop, I refuse to take UA---I'll either connect in DTW on DL or even AA at ORD. But I'm not going to give UA a dime to be routed through anywhere---even if UA is the cheapest option.

Any reason why?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

jetero wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think everyone agrees that United won’t be around 1,000 flights a day like ATL. But by getting to around 550-600 they will be able to replicate the function of ATL on a smaller scale.

So, in other words, it’ll be just like today, but busier ...

Yeah thats my thought too. Unless DEN is going to start serving destinations like PVG, TGU, EZE, FCO, and BRU, its not ever going to resemble ATL whatsoever.

Well they both have an underground train ...

jetero wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think everyone agrees that United won’t be around 1,000 flights a day like ATL. But by getting to around 550-600 they will be able to replicate the function of ATL on a smaller scale.

So, in other words, it’ll be just like today, but busier ...

Yeah thats my thought too. Unless DEN is going to start serving destinations like PVG, TGU, EZE, FCO, and BRU, its not ever going to resemble ATL whatsoever.

SumChristianus wrote:

I think rebanking DEN will help UA there, there's a lot of wasted aircraft time with the first major westbound bank not until after 11am.

Yes banks enhance connectivity and make a hub stronger.

Nothing earth-shattering there.

I think rebanking DEN will help UA there, there's a lot of wasted aircraft time with the first major westbound bank not until after 11am.

Again banks set up as the folllowing would enable better utilization, ominidirectionality, and growth prospects. Now not every destination would have a flight in every bank, and due to utilization optimazation, some banks would be smaller
Westbound: 8am, 10am, 12pm, 3pm, 7pm, 10pm
Eastbound: 8am, 10am, 12pm, 3pm, 6-7pm, 9-10pm

DEN-IND for example could see 4x daily with 8am, 10am, 3pm, and 7pm departures, and returns to DEN hitting the 8am/10am banks (first flight), 12pm or 3pm bank, 7pm bank, and 10pm bank
IND-DEN
6:20-7:00 A320
10:10-11:00 E75(turn from ORD-IND)
17:00-17:50 E75 (turn from ORD-IND)
20:20-21:10 A319 (from
DEN-IND
8:00-12:30 E75 (turn to IND-ORD)
10:30-3:30 A319 (turn to IND-ORD)
15:00-19:30 E75
19:10-23:50 A320 (overnights)

Not perfect, rough, but an example.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Greed? Cleveland was losing money as it wasn’t relevant in the combined company. Do you expect them to lose money just so a middle-tier city can hold on to nonstop flights? They are a business, not a charity, and you seem to be taking a business decision as some personal slight against CLE.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I assume youre aware that airlines are not charities? UA did what made financial sense. There is no reason to keep CLE as any kind of hub when its between ORD, EWR, and IAD. The only reason IAD is still around is that the Washington DC is rich in international O&D, something CLE completely lacks. Cleveland isnt a very international city and doesnt generate much international O&D. Why should UA have kept the hub?

"Cleveland was losing money as it wasn’t relevant in the combined company." If it is true that UA lost money in CLE its because UA created that situation. Before I lived in CLE and tried to fly UA, UA would try to route pax on its website via ORD or EWR. Only on page 4 or 5 of their webpage would you see the possibility of connecting in CLE---even when geographically CLE made more sense than the others AND from a schedule perspective. UA wanted to close CLE because it had ORD, EWR, and IAD but needed the ability to have numbers to "prove" it was losing money. Yes, airlines are not charities, they are businesses and they make business decisions. Making a particular station undesirable is fully within the control of a business. In any event, my only point was if I have to connect somewhere to get between CLE and a city, I will not take UA, but DL or AA as I personally saw how UA treated CLE--closing the hub, creating the situation to justify it, and letting hub employees learn about the closure from the news instead of UA management themselves. Why should I support such a company?

^I believe they promised DOJ that the merger was not about cutting jobs, that's why (when, of course, we all know its about increasing profit by creating greater operational "efficiencies" and thus cutting jobs. Also, why would UA try to route pax from BUF to Lansing or from PIT to IND via ORD or EWR instead of CLE?

Continental was posting down numbers in Cleveland prior to the merger, so I would imagine that it proceeded to get worse. United did what was financially viable. Hubs close, markets change. Same thing happened to PIT.

greenair727 wrote:

^I believe they promised DOJ that the merger was not about cutting jobs, that's why (when, of course, we all know its about increasing profit by creating greater operational "efficiencies" and thus cutting jobs. Also, why would UA try to route pax from BUF to Lansing or from PIT to IND via ORD or EWR instead of CLE?

Thats no different from any other airline. DL swore the CVG hub would remain at size and there wouldnt be cuts and there were. AA has also rightsized a few pieces of their network though they didnt close a hub.

At the end of the day all they did was close a redundant hub that was losing money. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that.

LAXdud1023 wrote:

At the end of the day all they did was close a redundant hub that was losing money. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that.

I'm not sure it would have been losing money had they wanted to keep it. I doubt there was any real effort to assess it--rather than intentionally make it look unprofitable-from the minute the merger was conceived, CLE was destined to the chopping block given EWR, ORD, and IAD.

"I dont get whats so hard to understand about that." I understand the desire for more and more profits, greed, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Or support a company that engages in it. Do not confuse understanding something with liking it. You probably understand what slavery was in the American South. That doesn't mean you liked it.

splitterz wrote:

I'd love to see more Eastern European added by United. PRG, BUD, maybe even WAW.

Wonder how AA is doing with their PRG and BUD flights..

I can see Prague and Warsaw as the strongest candidates for United, with WAW second given the LOT expansion there.

PRG is still woefully under-connected with North America, especially to destinations like ORD and LAX.

greenair727 wrote:

I'm not sure it would have been losing money had they wanted to keep it.

Well there's some circular logic.

greenair727 wrote:

"I dont get whats so hard to understand about that." I understand the desire for more and more profits, greed, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Or support a company that engages in it. Do not confuse understanding something with liking it. You probably understand what slavery was in the American South. That doesn't mean you liked it.

Isn't it easier to just say that, i.e., you didn't like the result and leave it at that?

Midwestindy wrote:

greenair727 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Greed? Cleveland was losing money as it wasn’t relevant in the combined company. Do you expect them to lose money just so a middle-tier city can hold on to nonstop flights? They are a business, not a charity, and you seem to be taking a business decision as some personal slight against CLE.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I assume youre aware that airlines are not charities? UA did what made financial sense. There is no reason to keep CLE as any kind of hub when its between ORD, EWR, and IAD. The only reason IAD is still around is that the Washington DC is rich in international O&D, something CLE completely lacks. Cleveland isnt a very international city and doesnt generate much international O&D. Why should UA have kept the hub?

"Cleveland was losing money as it wasn’t relevant in the combined company." If it is true that UA lost money in CLE its because UA created that situation. Before I lived in CLE and tried to fly UA, UA would try to route pax on its website via ORD or EWR. Only on page 4 or 5 of their webpage would you see the possibility of connecting in CLE---even when geographically CLE made more sense than the others AND from a schedule perspective. UA wanted to close CLE because it had ORD, EWR, and IAD but needed the ability to have numbers to "prove" it was losing money. Yes, airlines are not charities, they are businesses and they make business decisions. Making a particular station undesirable is fully within the control of a business. In any event, my only point was if I have to connect somewhere to get between CLE and a city, I will not take UA, but DL or AA as I personally saw how UA treated CLE--closing the hub, creating the situation to justify it, and letting hub employees learn about the closure from the news instead of UA management themselves. Why should I support such a company?

They didn't need to "create a situation" to close the hub, airlines have drawn down or closed hubs for the sheer reason of redundancies in the network.

Exactly. Why would you keep a hub if you have it covered with your other hubs. Consolidating gives you more efficiency and perhaps even more options to more customers. Also, remember that united was and continues to be pinched for aircraft, so it was a good opportunity to redeploy those assets elsewhere. Sometimes it is a matter of difficult choices . . .

greenair727 wrote:

LAXdud1023 wrote:

At the end of the day all they did was close a redundant hub that was losing money. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that.

I'm not sure it would have been losing money had they wanted to keep it. I doubt there was any real effort to assess it--rather than intentionally make it look unprofitable-from the minute the merger was conceived, CLE was destined to the chopping block given EWR, ORD, and IAD.

"I dont get whats so hard to understand about that." I understand the desire for more and more profits, greed, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Or support a company that engages in it. Do not confuse understanding something with liking it. You probably understand what slavery was in the American South. That doesn't mean you liked it.

They left your home airport and youre upset about that. I get it. I wouldnt feel the need to show any loyalty to them. However, the decision made was the logical one.

One of the biggest things I see on this site are delusions of grandeur on behalf of posters' home airports'. Cleveland simply isnt an international market not a very large one from an O&D perspective. The market punches way below its weight in O&D especially internationally. Why would any airline keep their lowest O&D market hub to sacrifice a larger, much more important market? The only way around that for a low O&D hub, is if its in a region where the number of hubs is lacking (like SLC and CLT).

LAXdude1023 wrote:

greenair727 wrote:

LAXdud1023 wrote:

At the end of the day all they did was close a redundant hub that was losing money. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that.

I'm not sure it would have been losing money had they wanted to keep it. I doubt there was any real effort to assess it--rather than intentionally make it look unprofitable-from the minute the merger was conceived, CLE was destined to the chopping block given EWR, ORD, and IAD.

"I dont get whats so hard to understand about that." I understand the desire for more and more profits, greed, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Or support a company that engages in it. Do not confuse understanding something with liking it. You probably understand what slavery was in the American South. That doesn't mean you liked it.

They left your home airport and youre upset about that. I get it. I wouldnt feel the need to show any loyalty to them. However, the decision made was the logical one.

One of the biggest things I see on this site are delusions of grandeur on behalf of posters' home airports'. Cleveland simply isnt an international market not a very large one from an O&D perspective. The market punches way below its weight in O&D especially internationally. Why would any airline keep their lowest O&D market hub to sacrifice a larger, much more important market? The only way around that for a low O&D hub, is if its in a region where the number of hubs is lacking (like SLC and CLT).

Yep! Keep a CLE hub or build a fortress in SFO . . . Keep a CLE hub or refocus in DEN, ORD, and LAX where you lost a lot of market share. Sometimes you simply don't have a choice

Eppley Airfield and Omaha World Herald are reporting this afternoon that United is adding a second flight between Omaha and San Francisco, beginning Feb. 14th. Cannot find any info on the United website, or any other info. Not clear on what equipment, frequency, etc.
Frontier started A320 service on this route this week I believe, although not quite daily.
Will give this market three flights on certain days.

greenair727 wrote:

^I believe they promised DOJ that the merger was not about cutting jobs, that's why (when, of course, we all know its about increasing profit by creating greater operational "efficiencies" and thus cutting jobs. Also, why would UA try to route pax from BUF to Lansing or from PIT to IND via ORD or EWR instead of CLE?

How could you fly Delta and American then? Delta did the same to the people of MeM and CVG and AA in STL. Those airlines treated those cities horribly after their mergers or takeover of TWA. Or do you ignore those facts since you don't live there. MEM is in an awful position because of the Delta merger and many peole had their lives affected there because of delta just like UA did in CLE and yet you fly delta too?

gon2fly wrote:

Eppley Airfield and Omaha World Herald are reporting this afternoon that United is adding a second flight between Omaha and San Francisco, beginning Feb. 14th. Cannot find any info on the United website, or any other info. Not clear on what equipment, frequency, etc.
Frontier started A320 service on this route this week I believe, although not quite daily.
Will give this market three flights on certain days.

I assume the third is an Express flight?

jetblastdubai wrote:

Hot off the presses, UA to add 2nd daily between SFO and OMA
OMA-SFO
0745-0940 E175
1455-1650 E175

SFO-OMA
0840-1415 E175
1735-2310 E175

http://www.omaha.com/money/united-airli ... 869a7.html

I don't get these times- neither an 840am nor a 535pm flight makes for any viable connections with the UA Asian flights. Is the 840am for domestic travellers from Skywest cities leaving their home city at 600am?

crescent wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Hot off the presses, UA to add 2nd daily between SFO and OMA
OMA-SFO
0745-0940 E175
1455-1650 E175

SFO-OMA
0840-1415 E175
1735-2310 E175

http://www.omaha.com/money/united-airli ... 869a7.html

I don't get these times- neither an 840am nor a 535pm flight makes for any viable connections with the UA Asian flights. Is the 840am for domestic travellers from Skywest cities leaving their home city at 600am?

Sydney, Taipei, Auckland.....all of the redeyes from Hawaii....and the early West coast arrivals (MFR, SEA, PDX, LAX, SAN, etc.) should be perfect for the early flight. The 1735 flight has been running for a year and a half now and is nearly always full, so it must work.

I use the 0745 out of OMA all the time. Wish it were a bit earlier departure actually. Lots of Asia and Hawaii connectors on that flight already..... I often get into SFO from Hawaii/Asia on the redeye and have to go through DEN to get home, so this 0840 add will be s.w.e.e.t.!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 702d45674b

UA/Kirby starting to bear fruit

“We view United as a sleeping giant, working to reach [its] full potential,” Becker said.

Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,” with May passenger traffic up 6.7%: May mainline traffic rose 6.1% on a 3% capacity gain, while regional traffic rose 11.6% on an 8.3% capacity gain. In other words, traffic rose faster than capacity, a positive sign, while “summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Strong demand, but the faster increase in regional flying is a little concerning as fuel costs rise, given the higher CASM of 50 seat jets.

SumChristianus wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/06/15/is-united-airlines-finally-gaining-ground-nearing-midyear-its-shares-lead-the-airline-industry/#7c702d45674b

UA/Kirby starting to bear fruit

“We view United as a sleeping giant, working to reach [its] full potential,” Becker said.

Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,” with May passenger traffic up 6.7%: May mainline traffic rose 6.1% on a 3% capacity gain, while regional traffic rose 11.6% on an 8.3% capacity gain. In other words, traffic rose faster than capacity, a positive sign, while “summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Strong demand, but the faster increase in regional flying is a little concerning as fuel costs rise, given the higher CASM of 50 seat jets.

it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield. Despite the fact that average domestic fare in May went down several percent compared to last year.

tphuang wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/06/15/is-united-airlines-finally-gaining-ground-nearing-midyear-its-shares-lead-the-airline-industry/#7c702d45674b

UA/Kirby starting to bear fruit

“We view United as a sleeping giant, working to reach [its] full potential,” Becker said.

Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,” with May passenger traffic up 6.7%: May mainline traffic rose 6.1% on a 3% capacity gain, while regional traffic rose 11.6% on an 8.3% capacity gain. In other words, traffic rose faster than capacity, a positive sign, while “summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Strong demand, but the faster increase in regional flying is a little concerning as fuel costs rise, given the higher CASM of 50 seat jets.

it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield. Despite the fact that average domestic fare in May went down several percent compared to last year.

Where does the article say that?

The two quotes were from the article the bottom section was my thoughts from the UA numbers quoted by the article: https://hub.united.com/united-reports-m ... 73479.html

tphuang wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/06/15/is-united-airlines-finally-gaining-ground-nearing-midyear-its-shares-lead-the-airline-industry/#7c702d45674b

UA/Kirby starting to bear fruit

“We view United as a sleeping giant, working to reach [its] full potential,” Becker said.

Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,” with May passenger traffic up 6.7%: May mainline traffic rose 6.1% on a 3% capacity gain, while regional traffic rose 11.6% on an 8.3% capacity gain. In other words, traffic rose faster than capacity, a positive sign, while “summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Strong demand, but the faster increase in regional flying is a little concerning as fuel costs rise, given the higher CASM of 50 seat jets.

it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield. Despite the fact that average domestic fare in May went down several percent compared to last year.

They do and don't. UA's trans-Atlantic traffic was up a whopping 13% YoY for May.

The 50 seat increase is because they don't have a choice. Tapped out on 76 seaters until the pilot contract changes (and its currently in negotiations).


The mention load factor because when UA announced this plan, it was greeted with great hostility from analysts.

jetero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/06/15/is-united-airlines-finally-gaining-ground-nearing-midyear-its-shares-lead-the-airline-industry/#7c702d45674b

UA/Kirby starting to bear fruit





Strong demand, but the faster increase in regional flying is a little concerning as fuel costs rise, given the higher CASM of 50 seat jets.

it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield. Despite the fact that average domestic fare in May went down several percent compared to last year.

Where does the article say that?

how about the part where she said.
“summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Where is the evidence prices are going up? They are definitely not going up domestically.

And also Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,"
based on LF going up. Well, LF going up is meaningless without seeing the effect of RASM and CASM. Sure if you add a lot of 50 seaters, lf and yield will go up, but CASM will skyrocket also.

tphuang wrote:

jetero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield. Despite the fact that average domestic fare in May went down several percent compared to last year.

Where does the article say that?

how about the part where she said.
“summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Where is the evidence prices are going up? They are definitely not going up domestically.

So, in other words, she did not say, as you stated, that "higher LF means higher fare prices or higher yield." She stated simply that demand is strong and that fares are going up.

If you have access to comprehensive forward-looking fare data for the entire domestic market and can state conclusively that fares "are definitely not going up domestically," then I guess you can disagree with her, but something tells me Helane Becker is not making that up.

tphuang wrote:

And also Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,"
based on LF going up. Well, LF going up is meaningless without seeing the effect of RASM and CASM. Sure if you add a lot of 50 seaters, lf and yield will go up, but CASM will skyrocket also.

You are once again reading things that are not there. Of course if you increase capacity you do it knowing that in the short-run fares will decrease--that's basic economics. And yes 50-seaters have higher CASM. Did Kirby or Becker ever say anything to the contrary?

Regardless I think if you parse the data, I don't think you'll see that the brunt of the capacity (or load factor) increases are driven by 50-seaters (especially not by 50-seaters replacing larger aircraft to drive up load factors as you imply).

The pilots will not give UA scope relief. UA needs to introduce a new narrow body a/c type to allow additional 76 seat a/c.

With the pilot shortage biting at the regionals and within five years, hitting the majors, pilots will work on bringing the 76 seat a/c in-house. This reality is the reason UA is scouring the planet for used 319s; they want to upgauge flying where they can to free up 76 seaters to upgauge 50 seat markets.

Another consideration is the fact UA has fewer narrow body a/c than DL and AA. Scaling up DEN is a great idea but UA has limitations due to its narrow body fleet size. They have 55 Max 9's and 100 Max 10's on-order. Those are big planes and would seem that UA would benefit with ordering a smaller a/c for growth and replacement of older small narrow body units.

jetero wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jetero wrote:

Where does the article say that?

how about the part where she said.
“summer demand is currently strong, even as prices go up,” Becker said.

Where is the evidence prices are going up? They are definitely not going up domestically.

So, in other words, she did not say, as you stated, that "higher LF means higher fare prices or higher yield." She stated simply that demand is strong and that fares are going up.

If you have access to comprehensive forward-looking fare data for the entire domestic market and can state conclusively that fares "are definitely not going up domestically," then I guess you can disagree with her, but something tells me Helane Becker is not making that up.

where is her data? Where did she get the idea that prices are going up?
April and May domestic fare index are out and they are both down sharply.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3363270-a ... -fall-back
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3355275-s ... four-years

tphuang wrote:

And also Becker said Kirby’s strategy of hub growth “is starting to bear fruit,"
based on LF going up. Well, LF going up is meaningless without seeing the effect of RASM and CASM. Sure if you add a lot of 50 seaters, lf and yield will go up, but CASM will skyrocket also.

You are once again reading things that are not there. Of course if you increase capacity you do it knowing that in the short-run fares will decrease--that's basic economics. And yes 50-seaters have higher CASM. Did Kirby or Becker ever say anything to the contrary?

Regardless I think if you parse the data, I don't think you'll see that the brunt of the capacity (or load factor) increases are driven by 50-seaters (especially not by 50-seaters replacing larger aircraft to drive up load factors as you imply).

Until we get the actual Q2 data, we will have no idea whether Kirby's hub growth strategy is working out. I'm simply giving an example and waiting for concrete data to come out. I'm not even stating they are adding a lot of 50 seaters. Where did I say that? I said "if you add 50 seaters, RASM and CASM will go up". What's wrong with that?

My statement is LF in isolation does not indicate whether or not strategy is bearing fruit. You need to wait for RASM and CASM data also. Which we won't see until their earnings call. What we do have indicates that in Q2, domestic fares are down.

TP you're all over the place.

Again, what you said was "it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield."

That was never said in the article.

tphuang wrote:

where is her data? Where did she get the idea that prices are going up?

I don't know, you'll have to ask her. But I doubt that an experienced equity analyst would be pulling that out of her arse.

Maybe she meant RASM. Both UA's and AA's most recent RASM guidance is up. Anecdotally I've certainly noticed fares going up in my market recently, which is to be expected when fuel prices go up--fares lag the increase in fuel prices.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/ ... e-the.aspx

tphuang wrote:

Until we get the actual Q2 data, we will have no idea whether Kirby's hub growth strategy is working out.

Again, you're reading things that aren't there. She said that the growth strategy is "starting to bear fruit," not saying conclusively that it was "working out." I'd say that's hard to disagree with. UA announce a large capacity increase that isn't received well by the market (never making any representations of what the impact would be on near-term fares, mind you), you rebank your primary connecting hubs, and load factors go up. I'd say it surely wouldn't be working if load factors went down. "Starting to bear fruit" sounds like a pretty safe conclusion to me. I don't think Kirby was ever especially sanguine about such a strategy leading to large RASM increases in the near term, as you imply. I'd say we're not going to know if it "is working out" conclusively for another 2 years.

tphuang wrote:

I'm simply giving an example and waiting for concrete data to come out. I'm not even stating they are adding a lot of 50 seaters. Where did I say that? I said "if you add 50 seaters, RASM and CASM will go up". What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except the context and the implication.

tphuang wrote:

My statement is LF in isolation does not indicate whether or not strategy is bearing fruit. You need to wait for RASM and CASM data also. Which we won't see until their earnings call. What we do have indicates that in Q2, domestic fares are down.

Of course. The article doesn't make any representations otherwise. The latest RASM guidance, though, is positive. UA's stock has outperformed peers. For once.

jetero wrote:

TP you're all over the place.

Again, what you said was "it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield."

That was never said in the article.

tphuang wrote:

where is her data? Where did she get the idea that prices are going up?

I don't know, you'll have to ask her. But I doubt that an experienced equity analyst would be pulling that out of her arse.

Maybe she meant RASM. Both UA's and AA's most recent RASM guidance is up. Anecdotally I've certainly noticed fares going up in my market recently, which is to be expected when fuel prices go up--fares lag the increase in fuel prices.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/ ... e-the.aspx

Having listened to many of these analysts on earnings calls, I completely disagree they actually know what they are talking about.

I give you links on domestic air fares index going down. So the overall domestic fares have dropped the last couple of months. And pretty significant drops. Maybe UA is flying more shorter segment flights (I think that is actually happening). Maybe UA is doing really well internationally. Or maybe legacies are just doing better than LCCs. Who knows. My guess is that a lot of legacy gains are due to TATL market performing much better recently, but that's unrelated to Kirby's strategies.

But I'm frankly sick of analysts repeating CEO words that fares are going up because fuel prices are going up. Do a google of "airline fares", you will be amazed how many articles are stating as fact that "fares are going up" instead of Doug Parker's original quote that "fares will be going up".

I don't know about you, but I actual don't like seeing fares going up or airline CEOs going in public signaling to each other that they are fine with hiking fares.

tphuang wrote:

Until we get the actual Q2 data, we will have no idea whether Kirby's hub growth strategy is working out.

Again, you're reading things that aren't there. She said that the growth strategy is "starting to bear fruit," not saying conclusively that it was "working out." I'd say that's hard to disagree with. UA announce a large capacity increase that isn't received well by the market (never making any representations of what the impact would be on near-term fares, mind you), you rebank your primary connecting hubs, and load factors go up. I'd say it surely wouldn't be working if load factors went down. "Starting to bear fruit" sounds like a pretty safe conclusion to me. I don't think Kirby was ever especially sanguine about such a strategy leading to large RASM increases in the near term, as you imply. I'd say we're not going to know if it "is working out" conclusively for another 2 years.

if their margin crashes from these move, I would definitely say that things are not bearing fruit. Again, I say RASM + CASM (margin), not just yield. LF is a very small part of conclusion. If Kirby's goal wasn't focused on short term performance, then there simply isn't any way whether she can actually judge it's bearing fruit.

tphuang wrote:

I'm simply giving an example and waiting for concrete data to come out. I'm not even stating they are adding a lot of 50 seaters. Where did I say that? I said "if you add 50 seaters, RASM and CASM will go up". What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except the context and the implication.

basically I said nothing that's not factual and you just attack me because I happen to be lazy and use the example the original poster used.

tphuang wrote:

My statement is LF in isolation does not indicate whether or not strategy is bearing fruit. You need to wait for RASM and CASM data also. Which we won't see until their earnings call. What we do have indicates that in Q2, domestic fares are down.

Of course. The article doesn't make any representations otherwise. The latest RASM guidance, though, is positive. UA's stock has outperformed peers. For once.

We will see if they actually outperform peers. It's possible their RASM will grow higher than peers for one quarter. But they also had one of the lowest margins last year. So they are going from a pretty low point.

tphuang wrote:

jetero wrote:

TP you're all over the place.

Again, what you said was "it's funny to me that analysts keep thinking higher LF means higher fare prices or even higher yield."

That was never said in the article.

tphuang wrote:

where is her data? Where did she get the idea that prices are going up?

I don't know, you'll have to ask her. But I doubt that an experienced equity analyst would be pulling that out of her arse.

Maybe she meant RASM. Both UA's and AA's most recent RASM guidance is up. Anecdotally I've certainly noticed fares going up in my market recently, which is to be expected when fuel prices go up--fares lag the increase in fuel prices.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/ ... e-the.aspx

Having listened to many of these analysts on earnings calls, I completely disagree they actually know what they are talking about.

I give you links on domestic air fares index going down. So the overall domestic fares have dropped the last couple of months. And pretty significant drops. Maybe UA is flying more shorter segment flights (I think that is actually happening). Maybe UA is doing really well internationally. Or maybe legacies are just doing better than LCCs. Who knows. My guess is that a lot of legacy gains are due to TATL market performing much better recently, but that's unrelated to Kirby's strategies.

But I'm frankly sick of analysts repeating CEO words that fares are going up because fuel prices are going up. Do a google of "airline fares", you will be amazed how many articles are stating as fact that "fares are going up" instead of Doug Parker's original quote that "fares will be going up".

I don't know about you, but I actual don't like seeing fares going up or airline CEOs going in public signaling to each other that they are fine with hiking fares.

tphuang wrote:

Until we get the actual Q2 data, we will have no idea whether Kirby's hub growth strategy is working out.

Again, you're reading things that aren't there. She said that the growth strategy is "starting to bear fruit," not saying conclusively that it was "working out." I'd say that's hard to disagree with. UA announce a large capacity increase that isn't received well by the market (never making any representations of what the impact would be on near-term fares, mind you), you rebank your primary connecting hubs, and load factors go up. I'd say it surely wouldn't be working if load factors went down. "Starting to bear fruit" sounds like a pretty safe conclusion to me. I don't think Kirby was ever especially sanguine about such a strategy leading to large RASM increases in the near term, as you imply. I'd say we're not going to know if it "is working out" conclusively for another 2 years.

if their margin crashes from these move, I would definitely say that things are not bearing fruit. Again, I say RASM + CASM (margin), not just yield. LF is a very small part of conclusion. If Kirby's goal wasn't focused on short term performance, then there simply isn't any way whether she can actually judge it's bearing fruit.

tphuang wrote:

I'm simply giving an example and waiting for concrete data to come out. I'm not even stating they are adding a lot of 50 seaters. Where did I say that? I said "if you add 50 seaters, RASM and CASM will go up". What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except the context and the implication.

basically I said nothing that's not factual and you just attack me because I happen to be lazy and use the example the original poster used.

tphuang wrote:

My statement is LF in isolation does not indicate whether or not strategy is bearing fruit. You need to wait for RASM and CASM data also. Which we won't see until their earnings call. What we do have indicates that in Q2, domestic fares are down.

Of course. The article doesn't make any representations otherwise. The latest RASM guidance, though, is positive. UA's stock has outperformed peers. For once.

We will see if they actually outperform peers. It's possible their RASM will grow higher than peers for one quarter. But they also had one of the lowest margins last year. So they are going from a pretty low point.

I agree with you. The earnings calls have become a rather nauseating, not insightful at all, and there’s a lot of parroting the company line. I don’t disagree, either, re the risk of adding a lot of capacity in this market and that the jury is out and will be out for a long time. I think “starting to beat fruit,” though, is a fair enough assessment on information available today (especially given the fact it’s a Ted Reed article). It’ll be interesting to see the Q2 results.

Apologies: what does LF stand for?

I think adding a lexicon of acronyms to airliners.net with an explanation would be a great thing to have for those of us still learning or newbies from the experts here! Also add to that aircraft model abbreviations (eg; 77W vs 77L or 77A etc) and airport codes.

What would even be better is if one could tap on CASM or SDU and get a pop up box that explains the acronym or identifies the airport. Many times I need to go look up a 3 letter airport code and even an airline code that would help when NOT discussing UA, LH, BA, EK, AA, DL, SQ etc, etc.

Just a lofty suggestion! But I’d pay a few extra bucks a year for that upgrade!

TYVM

[quote="tphuang"]
Having listened to many of these analysts on earnings calls, I completely disagree they actually know what they are talking about.

I give you links on domestic air fares index going down. So the overall domestic fares have dropped the last couple of months. And pretty significant drops. Maybe UA is flying more shorter segment flights (I think that is actually happening). Maybe UA is doing really well internationally. Or maybe legacies are just doing better than LCCs. Who knows. My guess is that a lot of legacy gains are due to TATL market performing much better recently, but that's unrelated to Kirby's strategies. [quote="tphuang"]

United is seeing higher LF now I agree a higher LF doesn't necessarily mean higher fares but it does mean more passenger in our seats. One strategy that I believe could be paying off for UA is we have finally completely the rollout if economy basic in the domestic market and I believe last month UA announced this product would be offered on certain international routes to Mexico, the Caribbean and some TATL route. One thing I've notice as a insider is s definite increase in the number of economy basic tickets sold on many flights. In fact just last week I booked my sisters on a UA flight ORD-SFO-ORD (and no they don't qualify for the 20% discount). My sisters haven't flow United domestically in over 15 years they live on the south side of Chicago about 15 minutes away from MDW and they have been loyal to WN for all those years. The only time they drive to ORD is for international long haul flights. However they have noticed WN's prices are not so cheap any longer in fact WN for a nonstop flight MDW-SFO-MDW wanted $573 dollars roundtrip they thought that was outrageous. They called me and I found economy basic tickets for $118 dollars each way plus $25 dollars for each of their checked bags. When you total it all up UA's price roundtrip including bag checked fees was $286 much cheaper than WN and that price was enough to make them endure the drive all the way to ORD.

I state this to show this is what Kirby is talking about when he says do a better job competing with LCCs. I think UA is finally getting it that majority of the flying public is price sensitive and in order to grow we have to grow our base by doing a better job competing with LCCs and WN. Economy basic is helping UA's LF's but it remains to be seen if economy basic will help UA's bottom line, because like you and others have pointed out higher LF doesn't necessarily mean higher ticket prices but economy basic is helping UA attract price sensitive passengers who would have never chosen UA before.

VC10er wrote:

Apologies: what does LF stand for?

Load factor.

It looks like UA has more cuts for the fall/winter, IAD-PWM once scheduled for 1x 73H, 1x319, 1x CR7, 1x ERJ, is now 2x CR7, 2x ERJ in October/November. In December its down to 2x ERJ, DEN-ABQ is down to only 1x daily mainline from up to three previously.

Some weirdly bunched flight times as well. OKC-DEN has four flights from 6am to 1pm and then a 6pm departure. The gaps make some of UA's schedules on competitive routes uncompetitive.


Any news on a potential fifth bank for IAD or the DEN rebanking? From the looks of things it will be a while before their comfortable with their current schedule.

jayunited wrote:

United is seeing higher LF now I agree a higher LF doesn't necessarily mean higher fares but it does mean more passenger in our seats. One strategy that I believe could be paying off for UA is we have finally completely the rollout if economy basic in the domestic market and I believe last month UA announced this product would be offered on certain international routes to Mexico, the Caribbean and some TATL route. One thing I've notice as a insider is s definite increase in the number of economy basic tickets sold on many flights. In fact just last week I booked my sisters on a UA flight ORD-SFO-ORD (and no they don't qualify for the 20% discount). My sisters haven't flow United domestically in over 15 years they live on the south side of Chicago about 15 minutes away from MDW and they have been loyal to WN for all those years. The only time they drive to ORD is for international long haul flights. However they have noticed WN's prices are not so cheap any longer in fact WN for a nonstop flight MDW-SFO-MDW wanted $573 dollars roundtrip they thought that was outrageous. They called me and I found economy basic tickets for $118 dollars each way plus $25 dollars for each of their checked bags. When you total it all up UA's price roundtrip including bag checked fees was $286 much cheaper than WN and that price was enough to make them endure the drive all the way to ORD.

I state this to show this is what Kirby is talking about when he says do a better job competing with LCCs. I think UA is finally getting it that majority of the flying public is price sensitive and in order to grow we have to grow our base by doing a better job competing with LCCs and WN. Economy basic is helping UA's LF's but it remains to be seen if economy basic will help UA's bottom line, because like you and others have pointed out higher LF doesn't necessarily mean higher ticket prices but economy basic is helping UA attract price sensitive passengers who would have never chosen UA before.

Thanks. That's a good point. It will be interesting to see if Kirby's strategy works out. I think UA's basic economy price matching has basically stopped the growth of NK at its hubs. Which is a victory I guess. But that has to be followed by UA gaining pricing power long term. Which we won't know for a couple of quarters.

We have heard AA/DL talking about making cuts with the high fuel prices. AA has done that in ORD already based on the latest OAG. Kirby has been pretty adamant about continuing his growth plan. I personally think he needs to pick and choose where to do it at. ORD and IAH seem to be like good places to do it there given its stronger position and maybe they can push down AA even more in ORD and be as profitable as AA is at DFW with IAH. But with fuel prices where they are and US economy unlikely to sustain its current growth, it can get knocked off the tracks very easily.

SumChristianus wrote:

It looks like UA has more cuts for the fall/winter, IAD-PWM once scheduled for 1x 73H, 1x319, 1x CR7, 1x ERJ, is now 2x CR7, 2x ERJ in October/November. In December its down to 2x ERJ, .

Really seems like UA has almost given up on quite a few New England markets . They have an extremely minimal year-round presence at PVD, MHT and PWM.

tphuang wrote:

We have heard AA/DL talking about making cuts with the high fuel prices. AA has done that in ORD already based on the latest OAG. Kirby has been pretty adamant about continuing his growth plan. I personally think he needs to pick and choose where to do it at. ORD and IAH seem to be like good places to do it there given its stronger position and maybe they can push down AA even more in ORD and be as profitable as AA is at DFW with IAH. But with fuel prices where they are and US economy unlikely to sustain its current growth, it can get knocked off the tracks very easily.

So with this week's PSA problems and some AA cuts at ORD is it time for UA to push hard for ORD to gain ground over AA. How about ATW/GRB/DAY/SDF/XNA/COS/FAT/GSO/ATL (more)/CLT (more) mainline and more frequencies to DFW/MIA/PHL/PHX. Or am I talking losses...?

I was checking Flightradar24 yesterday, and I saw that a 739 operated the mainline UA flight on IAH-CRP. Could this be a up gauge?