jayunited wrote:

Now take UA this past summer UA at ORD over 650 daily departures, I think next summer IAH will will come close to 600 daily departures, then there is DEN with over 300 daily departures this past summer, SFO with over 200 daily departures and finally LAX which this past summer had over 130 daily departures.

Just to provide some reality to the numbers. These are average daily departures for July over the past two years plus what is currently selling for next year.

HUB...2017...2018....2019...18 v 17...19 v 18
DEN....397.....445.....482......12%........8%
EWR..414......429.....431.......4%........1%
IAD....223......242.....275........8%........14%
IAH....505......504.....527........0%.........4%
LAX....142......165.....169......17%.........2%
ORD...576......619.....618.......7%.........0%
SFO...299......307.....317.......3%.........3%

It is my understanding that the next years schedules at this time are "fluid and dynamic" meaning that can and will change, often quite dramatically.


HUB...2017...2018....2019...18 v 17...19 v 18
DEN....397.....445.....482......12%........8%
EWR..414......429.....431.......4%........1%
IAD....223......242.....275........8%........14%
IAH....505......504.....527........0%.........4%
LAX....142......165.....169......17%.........2%
ORD...576......619.....618.......7%.........0%
SFO...299......307.....317.......3%.........3%


According to the IAH August 2018 traffic report
United 2018 Passenger Numbers

Domestic
2018 . 2017 Difference Growth
2,332,957 1,730,300 602,657 increase of 34.8%

International

2018 2019 Difference Growth

3,154,755 2,243,284 911,471 Increase of 41 %


IAH is now up over last year by 7 Percent and sales are looking very strong through the balance of the year

It is my understanding that the next years schedules at this time are "fluid and dynamic" meaning that can and will change, often quite dramatically.


HUB...2017...2018....2019...18 v 17...19 v 18
DEN....397.....445.....482......12%........8%
EWR..414......429.....431.......4%........1%
IAD....223......242.....275........8%........14%
IAH....505......504.....527........0%.........4%
LAX....142......165.....169......17%.........2%
ORD...576......619.....618.......7%.........0%
SFO...299......307.....317.......3%.........3%


According to the IAH August 2018 traffic report
United 2018 Passenger Numbers

Domestic
2018 . 2017 Difference Growth
2,332,957 1,730,300 602,657 increase of 34.8%

International

2018 2019 Difference Growth

3,154,755 2,243,284 911,471 Increase of 41 %


IAH is now up over last year by 7 Percent and sales are looking very strong through the balance of the year

tbboko802 wrote:

It is my understanding that the next years schedules at this time are "fluid and dynamic" meaning that can and will change, often quite dramatically.


IAH is now up over last year by 7 Percent and sales are looking very strong through the balance of the year

Absolutely. Just showing that his numbers were very wrong for some hubs.

Also, not sure if you really should be using those IAH numbers to try to prove anything. There was Hurricane Harvey last year which is skewing everything from a YOY perspective.

I was not really trying to "prove anything, just some perspective. Numbers do not mean much without accompanying information, so thanks for beating me to my Harvey reference.

Getting server error messages all the time, resulted in a double post. See below!

debonair wrote:

Hi, sorry if discussed before...

What happened to UA865 EWR-HAM? The seasonal service was not only uploaded in the systems, the flight was also upgraded to the larger B767.... But now it seems to been taken out from all reservation systems - any idea why?!

Looks like they intend to cancel the whole thing. Despite a 88-89% load factor this year with good C class bookings. Demand definitely is there, United only carried 22,7% of all passengers traveling from HAM to NYC on their nonstop service in 2017.

On the other hand Lufthansa increases their HAM-MUC flights by 10 weekly flights, from Summer 2019 (must be like 24 flights a day then, including EW).
Maybe this says it all about this.

tbboko802 wrote:

HUB...2017...2018....2019...18 v 17...19 v 18
DEN....397.....445.....482......

Not sure if any of the UAX carriers are missing from the count, but DEN was around 420 flights in 2017 and 470 in 2018.

mattnrsa wrote:

tbboko802 wrote:

HUB...2017...2018....2019...18 v 17...19 v 18
DEN....397.....445.....482......

Not sure if any of the UAX carriers are missing from the count, but DEN was around 420 flights in 2017 and 470 in 2018.

This is all inclusive. It's not "peak day" though so any day of week cancellations impact the average.

timberwolf24 wrote:

Any thing to the rumor that UA is looking to start ORD-MAN next spring?

I've heard nothing and suspect it is too late for anything like that to be launched for S19.

UA may have an interesting time ahead at MAN. They have applied for a B763 on EWR-MAN, but Ivee heard nothing further on implementing that plan either. They pulled IAD-MAN not so long ago, but I wonder if it might reappear if IAD is repositioned for more transfer traffic.

Of course they may do nothing!

DobboDobbo wrote:

timberwolf24 wrote:

Any thing to the rumor that UA is looking to start ORD-MAN next spring?

I've heard nothing and suspect it is too late for anything like that to be launched for S19.

UA may have an interesting time ahead at MAN. They have applied for a B763 on EWR-MAN, but Ivee heard nothing further on implementing that plan either. They pulled IAD-MAN not so long ago, but I wonder if it might reappear if IAD is repositioned for more transfer traffic.

Of course they may do nothing!

Brexit is happenning between S18 and S19. I'd bet that US airlines are being very cautious with adding capacity until things shake out over there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 9a1d9530ba

The above link provides some interesting insight into UA's IAD hub. According to the article UA has been answering questions about IAD's viability ever since opening a hub there in 1986, it highlights how many experts and analyst really ramp up their call for IAD's closing during bankruptcy and then again in 2014 where we all remember the Bod McAdoo article where he stated IAD was no longer necessary because of UA's merger with CO which gave UA EWR.
In this interview UA's vice president of domestic planning tackled those concerns head on by stating in the past IAD was cannibalized after the merger most likely by EWR but now UA has a new approach for IAD. According to the VP of domestic planning UA has already grown IAD by up to 15% and would like to grow IAD 10%-15% over the next year or two. He wants to grow UA from 250 daily departures today to 350 daily departures in the future although no year was given on when he hope UA will hit 350 departures from IAD.
The most eye opening statement in the article comes when the V.P. states and he makes a point of mentioning this twice is; IAD is now profitable and in the black. His statement is probably directed at Wall Street, and all the experts and critics who have been calling for IAD's closure. He make a point to let it be known that profit margins are not as high as they are at hubs like CLT, DCA, or DEN, but IAD is now a profitable hub for UA.

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

jayunited wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/10/15/united-airlines-adds-flights-at-newark-and-dulles-as-it-realigns-two-hubs-211-miles-apart/#2f9a1d9530ba

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

Well, certainly the falling CPE at IAD has to be a major factor. It has dropped about $10. Airport officials claim it's sustainable, even after the two year $50 million cash infusion from the state of Virginia runs out. One wonders whether the increased flying will strain United's IAD facilities. Maybe we will finally see some movement on a new concourse, even if only for the RJ operation.

LoudounHound wrote:

jayunited wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/10/15/united-airlines-adds-flights-at-newark-and-dulles-as-it-realigns-two-hubs-211-miles-apart/#2f9a1d9530ba

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

Well, certainly the falling CPE at IAD has to be a major factor. It has dropped about $10. Airport officials claim it's sustainable, even after the two year $50 million cash infusion from the state of Virginia runs out. One wonders whether the increased flying will strain United's IAD facilities. Maybe we will finally see some movement on a new concourse, even if only for the RJ operation.

The sale of the western lands at IAD will help drive costs down even further, which will boost the UA business case for the hub there:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-451996/

I wouldn't hold my breath for a new concourse in the next 5 to 10 years though. Kirby was quoted as saying costs would have to stay low for any additional banks at IAD to work. I'd bet on further improvements to the existing space, like the planned Polaris lounge that will be built next year.

LoudounHound wrote:

jayunited wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/10/15/united-airlines-adds-flights-at-newark-and-dulles-as-it-realigns-two-hubs-211-miles-apart/#2f9a1d9530ba

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

Well, certainly the falling CPE at IAD has to be a major factor. It has dropped about $10. Airport officials claim it's sustainable, even after the two year $50 million cash infusion from the state of Virginia runs out. One wonders whether the increased flying will strain United's IAD facilities. Maybe we will finally see some movement on a new concourse, even if only for the RJ operation.

Why not move some flight to the A/B concourse, there has to be some space there as none of the other domestic carriers are growing at IAD.

STT757 wrote:

LoudounHound wrote:

jayunited wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/10/15/united-airlines-adds-flights-at-newark-and-dulles-as-it-realigns-two-hubs-211-miles-apart/#2f9a1d9530ba

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

Well, certainly the falling CPE at IAD has to be a major factor. It has dropped about $10. Airport officials claim it's sustainable, even after the two year $50 million cash infusion from the state of Virginia runs out. One wonders whether the increased flying will strain United's IAD facilities. Maybe we will finally see some movement on a new concourse, even if only for the RJ operation.

Why not move some flight to the A/B concourse, there has to be some space there as none of the other domestic carriers are growing at IAD.

Is space really an issue though? Outside of that early evening bank, there seems to be plenty of room in C/D. I'd put my money on them better utilizing that space first. In the future though, I could see them taking up some space on the B concourse.

msp747 wrote:

LoudounHound wrote:

jayunited wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/10/15/united-airlines-adds-flights-at-newark-and-dulles-as-it-realigns-two-hubs-211-miles-apart/#2f9a1d9530ba

My question is what has changed at IAD even if this is a short lived achievement what has changed and is is possible for UA to sustain this new found profitability at IAD?

Well, certainly the falling CPE at IAD has to be a major factor. It has dropped about $10. Airport officials claim it's sustainable, even after the two year $50 million cash infusion from the state of Virginia runs out. One wonders whether the increased flying will strain United's IAD facilities. Maybe we will finally see some movement on a new concourse, even if only for the RJ operation.

The sale of the western lands at IAD will help drive costs down even further, which will boost the UA business case for the hub there:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-451996/

I wouldn't hold my breath for a new concourse in the next 5 to 10 years though. Kirby was quoted as saying costs would have to stay low for any additional banks at IAD to work. I'd bet on further improvements to the existing space, like the planned Polaris lounge that will be built next year.

Has United selected a location for the Polaris Lounge at IAD? In my experience all the Lounges, except for the one with 2 floors, small upstairs, large downstairs has roughly the size needed.

Then, it seems to me, that there won’t be enough room for United Clubs...a clear problem at EWR!

VC10er wrote:

Has United selected a location for the Polaris Lounge at IAD? In my experience all the Lounges, except for the one with 2 floors, small upstairs, large downstairs has roughly the size needed.

Then, it seems to me, that there won’t be enough room for United Clubs...a clear problem at EWR!

I believe it's going where the old F lounge was located down by the low C gates. It's a logical place since that's near where most of the international long-haul flights for UA depart.

VC10er wrote:

Has United selected a location for the Polaris Lounge at IAD? In my experience all the Lounges, except for the one with 2 floors, small upstairs, large downstairs has roughly the size needed.

Then, it seems to me, that there won’t be enough room for United Clubs...a clear problem at EWR!

EWR has always been short of United Clubs which is why they now have those ridiculous pop up clubs.
However at IAD there are 4 total clubs on the C and D concourse, there are 3 United Clubs and one former Global First Class lounge. (Its been a while since I've flown out of IAD but I think the former GF lounge still operates as a premium lounge for premium international passengers and not like a regular United Club.)
Knowing that UA is looking to grow IAD I think UA will choose the club that has the most space and is closest to the widebody international departure gates. That club will become the new Polaris club and the other 3 clubs will remain United Clubs. The problems we are seeing at EWR with its lack of permanent clubs I don't think you will have those problems at IAD I believe UA will still retain three separate United Club locations and one Polaris.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Has United selected a location for the Polaris Lounge at IAD? In my experience all the Lounges, except for the one with 2 floors, small upstairs, large downstairs has roughly the size needed.

Then, it seems to me, that there won’t be enough room for United Clubs...a clear problem at EWR!

I believe it's going where the old F lounge was located down by the low C gates. It's a logical place since that's near where most of the international long-haul flights for UA depart.

This article suggests that it's probably the club near C7: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-451375/

The proposal is an expansion of both the departures-level area for a Polaris lounge, as well as an apron-level expansion to add more space to the midfield FIS facility, which exits (I think) right near the C7 club. But the article is vague - it could be the Global First lounge, too.

IAH is rebounding as the energy sector recovers:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 334176.php
Hopefully this leads to even more growth domestically and internationally from UA!
On a side note:
I have been checking the loads on IAH-SYD on various dates in the October- November range on the UA site and they appear to be improving.

THis is interesting. I wonder how large they can build iah. Could it have space to get to a dfw size operation?

AVENSAB727 wrote:

IAH is rebounding as the energy sector recovers:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 334176.php
Hopefully this leads to even more growth domestically and internationally from UA!
On a side note:
I have been checking the loads on IAH-SYD on various dates in the October- November range on the UA site and they appear to be improving.

I'm happy for United and IAH and I hope the growth continues. But I think right now even though UA is growing IAH we are also on a apology tour. We are trying to rebuild that connection CO had to Houston and IAH. It's no secret after the merger UA didn't think Houston and IAH was as important as Chicago and ORD which was a mistake, and the people of Houston and more importantly Houston City Council made us pay dearly by allowing international flights to operate from HOU instead of exclusively at IAH. I think now that Oscar and Kirby are in charge they really see the value of Houston and IAH and they are trying dearly to repair the damage United caused during the early years of the merger.

[

Delete

I'm glad to see United finally turning the corner after years of a downward trend, but they still have a long way to go and a lot left to do to improve their brand. As I was reading about some of the changes, I had a couple of observations.

1. Growing the mid-continent hubs (ORD, IAH and DEN) is the right move in the short term, but IMO, they aren't going far enough. As UA lacks a ATL/DFW megahub, getting these up to as many departures as possible should be the first goal. ORD should grow to 800+ flights, IAH 600+ and DEN around 500.

2. On that note, UA needs to do a ton of upgauging in ORD and IAH. Their two largest hubs (which are significant business centers and have a ton of O&D, particularly ORD) have roughly 42% and 50% mainline flying respectively, which is pretty sad for the airline's flagship hubs. Both should be closer to 60-65%. This is why UA needs a 100 seat aircraft such as the A220/E195-E2, they could base it out of those two hubs and upgauge a lot of routes.

3. I also like how IAD is being built up again and becoming more of a connecting option as opposed to EWR. This being said, once UA gets a better financial position and strengthens their existing hubs, they need to consider a SE hub in a place such as BNA. I know this has been talked about previously on this forum and Oscar said previously they weren't interested at this time in a SE hub, but if UA really wants to rebound and challenge DL on becoming the premier US airline, they need to expand their footprint beyond their existing hubs. Not saying start focus cities or p2p flying, but every geographical area needs to be covered adequately (and no, IAD isn't going to cut it entirely for the SE, while it will certainly play a role, they still need a true, bona-fide SE hub).

Fargo wrote:

I'm glad to see United finally turning the corner after years of a downward trend, but they still have a long way to go and a lot left to do to improve their brand. As I was reading about some of the changes, I had a couple of observations.

1. Growing the mid-continent hubs (ORD, IAH and DEN) is the right move in the short term, but IMO, they aren't going far enough. As UA lacks a ATL/DFW megahub, getting these up to as many departures as possible should be the first goal. ORD should grow to 800+ flights, IAH 600+ and DEN around 500.

2. On that note, UA needs to do a ton of upgauging in ORD and IAH. Their two largest hubs (which are significant business centers and have a ton of O&D, particularly ORD) have roughly 42% and 50% mainline flying respectively, which is pretty sad for the airline's flagship hubs. Both should be closer to 60-65%. This is why UA needs a 100 seat aircraft such as the A220/E195-E2, they could base it out of those two hubs and upgauge a lot of routes.

3. I also like how IAD is being built up again and becoming more of a connecting option as opposed to EWR. This being said, once UA gets a better financial position and strengthens their existing hubs, they need to consider a SE hub in a place such as BNA. I know this has been talked about previously on this forum and Oscar said previously they weren't interested at this time in a SE hub, but if UA really wants to rebound and challenge DL on becoming the premier US airline, they need to expand their footprint beyond their existing hubs. Not saying start focus cities or p2p flying, but every geographical area needs to be covered adequately (and no, IAD isn't going to cut it entirely for the SE, while it will certainly play a role, they still need a true, bona-fide SE hub).

Agree with everything except BNA, it's a terrible hub for connecting the Northeast to the Southeast, which is the bread and butter of CLT and ATL. What city pairs make sense through BNA, NYC-Alabama?, PHL-Arkansas? DCA-Mississippi? That part of the South has little connectIon culturally or business wise to the Northeast. For the Northeast it's Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina with the cultural / family ties and the business connections. When AA had a hub at BNA it was in tandem with RDU. If UA wants a Southeast hub they need to fight DL and WN for RDU, more so DL because UA has shown they can live with WN in DEN, Houston and Chicago. UA would need to go into RDU and win the business traffic, kind of like DL did against AS in SEA to some degree of success and now BOS against B6. The Raleigh/ Durham research triangle part of North Carolina has very strong business, cultural and family ties to the Northeast.

AVENSAB727 wrote:

IAH is rebounding as the energy sector recovers:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 334176.php
Hopefully this leads to even more growth domestically and internationally from UA!
On a side note:
I have been checking the loads on IAH-SYD on various dates in the October- November range on the UA site and they appear to be improving.

You can’t check loads on an airlines website.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

AVENSAB727 wrote:

IAH is rebounding as the energy sector recovers:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 334176.php
Hopefully this leads to even more growth domestically and internationally from UA!
On a side note:
I have been checking the loads on IAH-SYD on various dates in the October- November range on the UA site and they appear to be improving.

You can’t check loads on an airlines website.

My mistake, I did check the availability of seats on the flight which I probably which I confused for loads, and on the flight was mostly full on most of the dates I checked. Examples are November 8th and 15th, the 30th of October, and some dates in December.

STT757 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

I'm glad to see United finally turning the corner after years of a downward trend, but they still have a long way to go and a lot left to do to improve their brand. As I was reading about some of the changes, I had a couple of observations.

1. Growing the mid-continent hubs (ORD, IAH and DEN) is the right move in the short term, but IMO, they aren't going far enough. As UA lacks a ATL/DFW megahub, getting these up to as many departures as possible should be the first goal. ORD should grow to 800+ flights, IAH 600+ and DEN around 500.

2. On that note, UA needs to do a ton of upgauging in ORD and IAH. Their two largest hubs (which are significant business centers and have a ton of O&D, particularly ORD) have roughly 42% and 50% mainline flying respectively, which is pretty sad for the airline's flagship hubs. Both should be closer to 60-65%. This is why UA needs a 100 seat aircraft such as the A220/E195-E2, they could base it out of those two hubs and upgauge a lot of routes.

3. I also like how IAD is being built up again and becoming more of a connecting option as opposed to EWR. This being said, once UA gets a better financial position and strengthens their existing hubs, they need to consider a SE hub in a place such as BNA. I know this has been talked about previously on this forum and Oscar said previously they weren't interested at this time in a SE hub, but if UA really wants to rebound and challenge DL on becoming the premier US airline, they need to expand their footprint beyond their existing hubs. Not saying start focus cities or p2p flying, but every geographical area needs to be covered adequately (and no, IAD isn't going to cut it entirely for the SE, while it will certainly play a role, they still need a true, bona-fide SE hub).

Agree with everything except BNA, it's a terrible hub for connecting the Northeast to the Southeast, which is the bread and butter of CLT and ATL. What city pairs make sense through BNA, NYC-Alabama?, PHL-Arkansas? DCA-Mississippi? That part of the South has little connectIon culturally or business wise to the Northeast. For the Northeast it's Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina with the cultural / family ties and the business connections. When AA had a hub at BNA it was in tandem with RDU. If UA wants a Southeast hub they need to fight DL and WN for RDU, more so DL because UA has shown they can live with WN in DEN, Houston and Chicago. UA would need to go into RDU and win the business traffic, kind of like DL did against AS in SEA to some degree of success and now BOS against B6. The Raleigh/ Durham research triangle part of North Carolina has very strong business, cultural and family ties to the Northeast.

BNA actually isn't too far out of the way. Of course it isn't as ideal as ATL or CLT, but it isn't bad, it's actually a pretty central location in the eastern half of the country. The point wouldn't be entirely to connect NE to Florida (remember, IAD could do some of the routes BNA couldn't do well), but to give UA SE travelers a more convenient hub for traveling as opposed to treking all the way to IAD. This being said, the goal here isn't to replace IAD, but to supplement it.

Don't get me wrong, RDU would be fine choice too, but the issue I see there is they already have a strong DL and AA legacy presence that has most of the business traffic locked up, whereas BNA does not have a dominant legacy carrier (AA has been shrinking a bit and DL won't grow much more because of ATL nearby). At BNA, WN is the dominant airline with their focus city, but they are domestic oriented and I question their long term commitment to BNA with their constant growth of STL and the large ATL presence nearby. With all of the Chicago/Northern transplants moving to BNA, Middle Tennessee's increasing ties to Asia (BNA wants a Tokyo flight), and the rapidly growing business community in the Nashville area, I feel UA has a interesting opportunity in Nashville if it works things right.

Granted, this is all speculation right now because UA has more important things (my first two points in the OP) to do in the short term, but I do believe a true SE hub will need to happen as soon as UA is in the position to build one. Either BNA or RDU (the only two southeastern markets that could realistically support a UA hub IMO) would be fine with me.

Could MEM possibly work as a SE hub? It already has the infrastructure to support a hub operation. In terms of gate space, MEM has a lot more than does Nashville. Like someone else mentioned about Nashville, it could supplement Dulles, not work against it. Florida connections from the West and the Midwest would go through Memphis, and Florida connections from the NE would route through Dulles. Seemed to have been a pretty nice operation back in the NWA days. Obviously, Delta had to de-hub MEM since they had ATL, but I personally think it would be a pretty nice SE hub for United.

There are some domestic destinations not currently served by UA that have nonstop service out of DFW on AA such as ABI, BMI, CMI, FSM, GCK, GRI, PIB, JLN, LAW, GGG, MHK, MEI, MGM, ROW, SJT, SUX, TYR, ACT, and SPS.

Of the destinations mentioned above, the lack of UA service to FSM and MGM are two of the biggest holes in the UA network. UA could add FSM-IAH, FSM-ORD, MGM-IAH, MGM-ORD, and MGM-IAD nonstop service. FSM and MGM both already have DL service in addition to AA, whereas some of the other small regional destinations served by AA do not have any service on DL or UA.

Will United Express ever add service to FSM or MGM?

Not sure UA is looking for an SE hub/focus but if they were would suggest SDF, MEM and BHM are the candidates. BNA has a large WN focus. RDU is a DL focus along with strong AA and WN. (ATL and CLT not considered as they are fortress hubs and UA would not go there)

Point being where in the Southeast might make sense IF UA were looking for a focus/hub operation in the Southeastern USA? For reasons cited above, BNA and RDU would prove more challenging for UA to attract the level of O&D UA might like because of the substantial service currently provided by WN at BNA and DL, AA, WN at RDU. Cities located in the SE that have a CSA population (catchment area) sufficient to support a focus/hub operation would be: SDF, MEM or BHM...and will add GSO...each of those have catchments that exceed 1.3M and are located in the SE and are not over-served by any carrier.

Obviously MEM was a hub/focus for DL, NW and Southern Airways back in the day. MEM has FEDEX Superhub today. GSO was a mini hub for CO Lite back in the day. BHM missed the boat with DL a long time ago but it and SDF were also considered by AA when AA selected BNA. SDF was an EA Focus until it moved to CLT. SDF was also considered for PI minihub which went to DAY. SDF has UPS Superhub today.

I do not believe UA is looking to do anything in the SE....but if it did....I believe the candidates are SDF, MEM, BHM and GSO. There are no other large cities in the SE with the right location for this type operation.

CVG is considered a DL Focus city today. My comment included FOCUS or HUB operation. BNA and RDU CAN NOT support a UA hub or focus AND their current level of service. Actually NONE of these cities could support a full blown UA hub. BNA and RDU failed with AA; MEM and CVG failed with DL

MEM, SDF, GSO and BHM could all support a UA FOCUS operation (GSO perhaps the most challenging because of proximity to RDU)

jayunited wrote:

I'm happy for United and IAH and I hope the growth continues. But I think right now even though UA is growing IAH we are also on a apology tour. We are trying to rebuild that connection CO had to Houston and IAH. It's no secret after the merger UA didn't think Houston and IAH was as important as Chicago and ORD which was a mistake, and the people of Houston and more importantly Houston City Council made us pay dearly by allowing international flights to operate from HOU instead of exclusively at IAH. I think now that Oscar and Kirby are in charge they really see the value of Houston and IAH and they are trying dearly to repair the damage United caused during the early years of the merger.

An apology tour? For what? I think Houston is too sensitive. I don't think there is any evidence that UA had some bias against Houston in favor of Chicago. Houston was the big dog before the merger and can't seem to get over the fact that they have to share that with Chicago now. UA is not some petty teenager, they are going to open and close routes based on profits, period. The title of biggest UA hub is going to go back and forth and oil prices will be a big factor. Oil prices began a free fall in June 2014 from about $110/barrel to about $52/barrel by January 2015. Subsequently, business travel in IAH also decreased significantly, thereby reflecting in a slow down of the IAH hub. IIRC, ORD took over as largest hub for UA sometime after that.

The only way ORD could have an 800 flight operation with the current facilities is if they were to build a full-on huge 10 PM bank as well as jam in a ton of mid-day off-bank regional flights, neither of which would likely be profitable.

United787 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I'm happy for United and IAH and I hope the growth continues. But I think right now even though UA is growing IAH we are also on a apology tour. We are trying to rebuild that connection CO had to Houston and IAH. It's no secret after the merger UA didn't think Houston and IAH was as important as Chicago and ORD which was a mistake, and the people of Houston and more importantly Houston City Council made us pay dearly by allowing international flights to operate from HOU instead of exclusively at IAH. I think now that Oscar and Kirby are in charge they really see the value of Houston and IAH and they are trying dearly to repair the damage United caused during the early years of the merger.

An apology tour? For what? I think Houston is too sensitive. I don't think there is any evidence that UA had some bias against Houston in favor of Chicago. Houston was the big dog before the merger and can't seem to get over the fact that they have to share that with Chicago now. UA is not some petty teenager, they are going to open and close routes based on profits, period. The title of biggest UA hub is going to go back and forth and oil prices will be a big factor. Oil prices began a free fall in June 2014 from about $110/barrel to about $52/barrel by January 2015. Subsequently, business travel in IAH also decreased significantly, thereby reflecting in a slow down of the IAH hub. IIRC, ORD took over as largest hub for UA sometime after that.

Im not saying youre wrong, but you are speaking like someone who doesnt understand this market.

Houston never recovered from the merger of UA and CO. CO was very beloved here and UA isnt nearly as much. Smisek did a lot of damage between the relationship of Houston and the airline. Its not what they did to the IAH hub, its how they handled it.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im not saying youre wrong, but you are speaking like someone who doesnt understand this market.

Houston never recovered from the merger of UA and CO. CO was very beloved here and UA isnt nearly as much. Smisek did a lot of damage between the relationship of Houston and the airline. Its not what they did to the IAH hub, its how they handled it.

Smisek did a lot of damage all over UA and pissed pmUA and pmCO loyals off. I am not from Houston so please help me to understand. What did Smisek specifically do to damage the relations with Houston? Was it because Chicago was chosen to be the HQ?

United787 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im not saying youre wrong, but you are speaking like someone who doesnt understand this market.

Houston never recovered from the merger of UA and CO. CO was very beloved here and UA isnt nearly as much. Smisek did a lot of damage between the relationship of Houston and the airline. Its not what they did to the IAH hub, its how they handled it.

Smisek did a lot of damage all over UA and pissed pmUA and pmCO loyals off. I am not from Houston so please help me to understand. What did Smisek specifically do to damage the relations with Houston? Was it because Chicago was chosen to be the HQ?

One of the main things that Smisek did to damage relations with Houston was the way he handled the situation of Southwest receiving clearance to start international operations out of HOU. What practically happened was all because Southwest could start to fly internationally out of HOU, UA would cut IAH by 10 percent, cancel the "upcoming IAH-AKL launch", eliminate IAH-CDG/AUA and some others, threatened even more cuts. And put the Terminal B renovation and expansion to a standstill. And off course, ignored IAH in regards for expansion for a while after that as well. All of this put a bad note in the relations with Houston.

Well said. No one is refuting the reason Chicago was chosen as HQ or the price of oil...its all about how the public perception of UA was fouled. I would be interested to see how other airlines have faired in Houston since the merger. Colloquially speaking it seems that other carriers have all grown...

AVENSAB727 wrote:

...

Thank you for sharing, that is helpful.

This old news--- United has spent a ton on the IAH terminal and loads and flights are way up. Smisek is old news

drerx7 wrote:

Well said. No one is refuting the reason Chicago was chosen as HQ or the price of oil...its all about how the public perception of UA was fouled. I would be interested to see how other airlines have faired in Houston since the merger. Colloquially speaking it seems that other carriers have all grown...

It’s interesting that people have this notion that United has somehow punished Houston for dropping 1 long haul route. Never mind the very nice renovation that has taken place in the terminals. I went thru there after a 2 year absence and was amazed at how improved the terminal is. Compare IAH’s terminal expansions and renovations to ORD’s or IAD for that matter and tell me again which hub is being ignored/punished. Certainly won’t see any leaking ceilings at any IAH concourse when it’s raining outside.

kordcj wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

Well said. No one is refuting the reason Chicago was chosen as HQ or the price of oil...its all about how the public perception of UA was fouled. I would be interested to see how other airlines have faired in Houston since the merger. Colloquially speaking it seems that other carriers have all grown...

It’s interesting that people have this notion that United has somehow punished Houston for dropping 1 long haul route. Never mind the very nice renovation that has taken place in the terminals. I went thru there after a 2 year absence and was amazed at how improved the terminal is. Compare IAH’s terminal expansions and renovations to ORD’s or IAD for that matter and tell me again which hub is being ignored/punished. Certainly won’t see any leaking ceilings at any IAH concourse when it’s raining outside.

Concourses, no. Some older Jet Bridges, yes.

EWR has always been short of United Clubs which is why they now have those ridiculous pop up clubs.
However at IAD there are 4 total clubs on the C and D concourse, there are 3 United Clubs and one former Global First Class lounge. (Its been a while since I've flown out of IAD but I think the former GF lounge still operates as a premium lounge for premium international passengers and not like a regular United Club.)
Knowing that UA is looking to grow IAD I think UA will choose the club that has the most space and is closest to the widebody international departure gates. That club will become the new Polaris club and the other 3 clubs will remain United Clubs. The problems we are seeing at EWR with its lack of permanent clubs I don't think you will have those problems at IAD I believe UA will still retain three separate United Club locations and one Polaris.[/quote]

Aren’t the “ridiculous” pop-up clubs a short term solution? I was under the impression that United has plans to open more permanent United Clubs at EWR? I got an email from them about a month ago saying as much, I believe it said “while we are looking for permanent solutions for United Clubs at Newark, you can also use the pop-ups Clubs, TA United Club etc....”
I have no idea where they would put them, but it would seem logical to build something on a concourse roof- if it could take the weight!
They MUST do something and they must know it, I do not think UA would consider the “pop-up” Clubs as anything but a temporary fix.

What is going on with UA and LAX? They seem to be cutting back more than adding. I thought they were going to make a renewed push there?

Fargo wrote:

What is going on with UA and LAX? They seem to be cutting back more than adding. I thought they were going to make a renewed push there?

They appear to be cutting routes with more competition and moving the flights to routes with less competition. For example, when LAX-DFW was axed, they added LAX-EUG and LAX-MSN.

The trend appears to be less mainline flights and more express/regional flights instead. Of course, they're still plenty of mainline flights, but most of them are only hub-to-hub flights, like LAX-SFO/EWR/IAH/IAD/ORD

Of course, there are exceptions to this, on routes with very large markets, such as Hawaii, BOS, LAS, CUN, etc.

Question.

What's the point of UA's LAX-BWI flight? With their large operation at IAD, it would seem like that flight isn't needed. (albeit, BWI and IAD are not fairly close together and they both represent very different markets--but even still, that route seems a bit odd).

Any connections via the west coast can be made through SFO.

FA9295 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

What is going on with UA and LAX? They seem to be cutting back more than adding. I thought they were going to make a renewed push there?

They appear to be cutting routes with more competition and moving the flights to routes with less competition. For example, when LAX-DFW was axed, they added LAX-EUG and LAX-MSN.

The trend appears to be less mainline flights and more express/regional flights instead. Of course, they're still plenty of mainline flights, but most of them are only hub-to-hub flights, like LAX-SFO/EWR/IAH/IAD/ORD

Yes. It’s pretty telling that unlike AA and DL, UA doesn’t fly to a lot of midsized cities east of the Mississippi from LAX. That’s gonna have to change at some point, but UA needs more gates at LAX.

FA9295 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

What is going on with UA and LAX? They seem to be cutting back more than adding. I thought they were going to make a renewed push there?

They appear to be cutting routes with more competition and moving the flights to routes with less competition. For example, when LAX-DFW was axed, they added LAX-EUG and LAX-MSN.

The trend appears to be less mainline flights and more express/regional flights instead. Of course, they're still plenty of mainline flights, but most of them are only hub-to-hub flights, like LAX-SFO/EWR/IAH/IAD/ORD

Of course, there are exceptions to this, on routes with very large markets, such as Hawaii, BOS, LAS, CUN, etc.

It appears two frequencies LAX-SMF have been upgraded to mainline M-F.

FA9295 wrote:

Question.

What's the point of UA's LAX-BWI flight? With their large operation at IAD, it would seem like that flight isn't needed. (albeit, BWI and IAD are not fairly close together and they both represent very different markets--but even still, that route seems a bit odd).

Any connections via the west coast can be made through SFO.

It offers coverage for UA in the whole DC area. UA doesn’t have a DCA beyond perimeter slot for LAX, so having something on the east side of the region is a plus.

Just eyeballing the schedules today:

LAX-IAD: 7x UA, 2x AA, 2x AS
LAX-DCA: 2x AA, 1x DL, 1x AS
LAX-BWI: 3x WN, 1x NK, 1x AS, 1x UA