United Airlines has had a lot of growth domestically recently and has recently added numerous new markets out of DEN, ORD, and SFO.

MSN-SFO, ATW-DEN, and ORD-BIS come across as some of the most interesting from their recent entrance.

Besides new routes, mainline service has returned or begun on routes such as Chicago-Duluth, Denver-Sioux Falls, and Newark-Buffalo.

In the competitve marketplace that is the U.S. aviation market, what predictions, insights, and data can you share about the future of United's domestic network?
Will Denver become a superhub like Charlotte for AA or Atlanta for DL?
How is United hampered (or not) by its lack of large 600+ flight hubs like AA and DL have?
Can United grow and regain the marketshare it has lost over the past decade, or will it be consigned to be a niche carrier operating either RJs to most destinations or mainline jets at low frequency compared to competitors?
United has started to grow again at Los Angeles and Washington Dulles, two airports Airliners.net has often rumored are to be cut as hubs. How will they grow from these airports in the future?
Is there a place for the CSeries or CRJ900 in United's fleet?
What new cities will United serve internationally and domestically?
Overall, which new cities, new routes, increased frequencies, and network changes do you expect from UA?

This thread could be a place to consolidate UA related network news, analysis, and theories.
I'm new here, and hope this is an alright way to start a topic, but I think there is a lot to think about and discuss about U.S. airlines' route networks.

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.
Chicago-Dayton was increased from 5x to 7x! a day in today's OAG update thread.
UA has increased DEN recently with numerous new regional EAS routes, like Kearney, Scottsbluff, Liberal, Cody, Cape Girardeau, and Moab. I hope they look at Riverton from DEN and IMT (taking over the DL/OO EAS bid) to ORD.

Will Denver become a super hub like CLT or ATL? No. There's not enough gates for United to do that, and the fleet isn't big enough.

How is United hampered or not by its like of 600+ flights hubs? ORD and IAH are in the 500's. They don't have fortress hubs like ATL, DFW, or CLT.

Can United grow and regain the marketshare it has lost over the past decade, or will it be consigned to be a niche carrier operating either RJs to most destinations or mainline jets at low frequency compared to competitors? It *is* growing across their network. From new routes, to up-gauging of aircraft.

United has started to grow again at Los Angeles and Washington Dulles, two airports Airliners.net has often rumored are to be cut as hubs. How will they grow from these airports in the future? They will add routes, and capacity where they can make money. Like anywhere in the network.

Is there a place for the CSeries or CRJ900 in United's fleet? Sure. But is there a place for the aircraft in the business plan for UAL? I don't know.

What new cities will United serve internationally and domestically? Domestic. I'd wager they'd add or further connect smaller communities, and up-gauge established routes where it makes sense. Internationally? There are routes I'd like to see, but United seems to typically play it safe, and utilize Star Alliance connections. I would like to see Prague open from Newark, but I just do not think that it is in the cards right now. I'd expect to see some new routes added thjs year with the increase of wide-body a/c coming online; they have more 789s, 78Js, and 77Ws coming to the fleet this year. I expect 2018 to be a great year for United.

Overall, which new cities, new routes, increased frequencies, and network changes do you expect from UA? I expect growth across the system. LAX, DEN, and ORD the most domestically, and SFO, and EWR leading the charge with international additions.

splitterz wrote:

Will Denver become a super hub like CLT or ATL?

CLT's hub, though impressive in scale, functions on less than 30% O&D.... I doubt DEN wants to be annnnnnnything remotely like that.

It's already a busier O&D and busier total traffic airfield, regardless.

UA needs additional mainline, about 100 more, and more large 75 seaters. The answer to both is a new 100 seater mainline, if they add an additional 88 100 seat mainline they can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s. Considering what's going on with the CSeries and the latest Boeing news perhaps they will go for the ERJ-195E2.

88 additional ERJ-195E2s, plus the additional 70 ERJ-175s, plus the used A319s, A320s should put UA in a better position domestically.

SumChristianus wrote:

United Airlines has had a lot of growth domestically recently and has recently added numerous new markets out of DEN, ORD, and SFO.

MSN-SFO, ATW-DEN, and ORD-BIS come across as some of the most interesting from their recent entrance.

Besides new routes, mainline service has returned or begun on routes such as Chicago-Duluth, Denver-Sioux Falls, and Newark-Buffalo.

In the competitve marketplace that is the U.S. aviation market, what predictions, insights, and data can you share about the future of United's domestic network?
Will Denver become a superhub like Charlotte for AA or Atlanta for DL?
How is United hampered (or not) by its lack of large 600+ flight hubs like AA and DL have?
Can United grow and regain the marketshare it has lost over the past decade, or will it be consigned to be a niche carrier operating either RJs to most destinations or mainline jets at low frequency compared to competitors?
United has started to grow again at Los Angeles and Washington Dulles, two airports Airliners.net has often rumored are to be cut as hubs. How will they grow from these airports in the future?
Is there a place for the CSeries or CRJ900 in United's fleet?
What new cities will United serve internationally and domestically?
Overall, which new cities, new routes, increased frequencies, and network changes do you expect from UA?.

I do not envision DEN becoming a super hub. If anything, it will be IAH that does. I don't see either of those scenarios occurring.

United is not hampered by its lack of a 600+ flight hub as its hubs serve most of the major cities well, and they provide great connection opportunities. Overall, UA has the best hub network of the big three, even though no hub is an ATL for them.

No, United cannot hope to fully regain the market share, but its focus should not be on that. It should focus on being great for big city business travelers and major international travelers. That's its strength, and it is ok if they only serve small cities with RJs. They really shouldn't worry about that too much as their customers love their route network, and they should capitalize on offering international destinations and intercity frequencies that no one else can.

IAD and LAX will not grow any further. There is no room at LAX, and IAD just does not make sense. IAD should remain how it is or be downsized. They should continue to serve the major international destinations, but I don't know how well they can fill domestic planes from IAD. I'm not too familiar with the LAX situation, so I'm gonna offer a partial answer. They should maintain their operation at LAX and continue to offer solid connections through LAX, versus SFO. Other than that, I'm not sure what else to say about LAX.

Again, not too familiar with the Cseries situation.

I see them adding more Asian cities from SFO and increasing mainline between nonhub major cities and EWR, which bore the brunt of the RJ transition. I mean, ATL was all RJs until June 2017! That's crazy!!! European expansion will remain subdued for now, but I see additions of smaller European cities in the cards, like Prague, Budapest, Krakow, Riga, Moscow, even Graz or St Petersburg or Helsinki from EWR. They really need to grow the European network from EWR. It is already strong, but they are missing a few cities. Also forgot to mention Nice and Malaga. The addition of Porto and Reykjavik is very useful. They are both very popular destinations from New York.

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?

SumChristianus wrote:

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.

Where did you see this?

DeltaRules wrote:

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?

SumChristianus wrote:

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.

Where did you see this?

I think he was saying he could see that as a possible addition, not that it was already added.

Midwestindy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?

SumChristianus wrote:

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.

Where did you see this?

I think he was saying he could see that as a possible addition, not that it was already added.

Yeah, I must have misread it on second glance. I took it to mean it was a done deal.

I would think three very likely candidates for ORD expansion would be BMI,DBQ, and SBD. Any thoughts?

it seems like OO may get Plattsburgh EAS to IAD to replace K5 to Boston.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/news/loc ... def8e.html

A major hole in UA’s network: LAX-PDX

DeltaRules wrote:

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?

UA will be a distant fourth with or without SFO-CMH. UA carries something like 900 fewer PDEW from CMH than #3 DL.

airportlover wrote:

IAD and LAX will not grow any further. There is no room at LAX

There may not be any significant growth at LAX in the immediate future, but it has been reported that there will be resumption of one international route out of LAX this year. Further down the line, a hypothetical T9 would also belong to UA, so there's that.

Where do you see ORD-DLH going mainline? They are currently using 3 50-seat RJs a day, that’s quite an increase in lift.

jetskipper wrote:

Where do you see ORD-DLH going mainline? They are currently using 3 50-seat RJs a day, that’s quite an increase in lift.

In March the overnight becomes mainline, you can find it on United.com.

Midwestindy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?

SumChristianus wrote:

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.

Where did you see this?

I think he was saying he could see that as a possible addition, not that it was already added.

Sorry, I've heard it rumored as in consideration on this site, and it fits their apparent recent strategy of increasing regional feed into their hubs (and in ORD challenging AA monopolies for connecting passengers.

Rdh3e wrote:

jetskipper wrote:

Where do you see ORD-DLH going mainline? They are currently using 3 50-seat RJs a day, that’s quite an increase in lift.

In March the overnight becomes mainline, you can find it on United.com.

Impressive.

Rdh3e wrote:

jetskipper wrote:

Where do you see ORD-DLH going mainline? They are currently using 3 50-seat RJs a day, that’s quite an increase in lift.

In March the overnight becomes mainline, you can find it on United.com.

I believe it is mainly to monetize aircraft rotations into UA's new contract maintenance in Duluth for A319s/A320s. Aircraft will swap in and out overnight.

SumChristianus wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Is UA ever going to add CMH-SFO or are they content to run a distant fourth in Columbus?



Where did you see this?

I think he was saying he could see that as a possible addition, not that it was already added.

Sorry, I've heard it rumored as in consideration on this site, and it fits their apparent recent strategy of increasing regional feed into their hubs (and in ORD challenging AA monopolies for connecting passengers.

Both UA and AA have been going tit-for-tat in recent times. UA added AZO/EVV/RST and now BIS and ELP. AA has been knocking off some of UAs like ASE/BZN/CHS/GSO/GSP. UA's list is a lot longer though (in terms of places AA doesn't serve) so it makes you wonder if we won't see more of AA doing this and less of UA.

AA Unique Chicago CIties (July 2018):
ALO
BMI
DBQ
JFK
LSE
MEI
MHK
MQT
PSP
SUX
TOL

UA Unique Chicago Cities (July 2018):
ABE
ANC
AVL
AVP
BIL
CAE
CGI
CKB
CMX
CRW
DLH
EAU
ERI
EYW
FAI
FAT
FCA
GEG
GTF
HNL
IAD
JAN
LNK
LWB
MBS
MHT
MKG
MOB
OGG
PAH
PNS
ROA
SBN
SCE
SLN
SPI
SRQ
UIN
YOW
YQB
YWG

RJNUT wrote:

it seems like OO may get Plattsburgh EAS to IAD to replace K5 to Boston.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/news/loc ... def8e.html

I've also seen an OO/UA application on https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2000-8012-0138 for EAS service on Presque Isle, ME (PQI I believe) to IAD.

They use an OLD UA route map on their application though.

SumChristianus wrote:

United Airlines has had a lot of growth domestically recently and has recently added numerous new markets out of DEN, ORD, and SFO.

MSN-SFO, ATW-DEN, and ORD-BIS come across as some of the most interesting from their recent entrance.

Besides new routes, mainline service has returned or begun on routes such as Chicago-Duluth, Denver-Sioux Falls, and Newark-Buffalo.

In the competitve marketplace that is the U.S. aviation market, what predictions, insights, and data can you share about the future of United's domestic network?
Will Denver become a superhub like Charlotte for AA or Atlanta for DL?
How is United hampered (or not) by its lack of large 600+ flight hubs like AA and DL have?
Can United grow and regain the marketshare it has lost over the past decade, or will it be consigned to be a niche carrier operating either RJs to most destinations or mainline jets at low frequency compared to competitors?
United has started to grow again at Los Angeles and Washington Dulles, two airports Airliners.net has often rumored are to be cut as hubs. How will they grow from these airports in the future?
Is there a place for the CSeries or CRJ900 in United's fleet?
What new cities will United serve internationally and domestically?
Overall, which new cities, new routes, increased frequencies, and network changes do you expect from UA?

This thread could be a place to consolidate UA related network news, analysis, and theories.
I'm new here, and hope this is an alright way to start a topic, but I think there is a lot to think about and discuss about U.S. airlines' route networks.

I'll start out by saying that I see Chicago-Toledo as a new United Express route, served 3x a day on E145s or CRJ200s.
Chicago-Dayton was increased from 5x to 7x! a day in today's OAG update thread.
UA has increased DEN recently with numerous new regional EAS routes, like Kearney, Scottsbluff, Liberal, Cody, Cape Girardeau, and Moab. I hope they look at Riverton from DEN and IMT (taking over the DL/OO EAS bid) to ORD.

ATL and CLT are not superhubs by accident. They are centrally located to connect passengers from all over the US to Florida and the heavily populated Southeast, the most populous region in the US. DEN is hindered by being located in the least populous region (albeit one of the fastest growing) of the country, not to mention being a hub for three major US airlines, making DEN nearly impossible to be a candidate for a superhub.

Jeremy

tcaeyx wrote:

airportlover wrote:

IAD and LAX will not grow any further. There is no room at LAX

There may not be any significant growth at LAX in the immediate future, but it has been reported that there will be resumption of one international route out of LAX this year. Further down the line, a hypothetical T9 would also belong to UA, so there's that.

Yes, but one route doesn't make much of a difference in my mind. Especially if it is a minor market. Also will T9 ever get built with the state of infrastructure development in this country?

SumChristianus wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

it seems like OO may get Plattsburgh EAS to IAD to replace K5 to Boston.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/news/loc ... def8e.html

I've also seen an OO/UA application on https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2000-8012-0138 for EAS service on Presque Isle, ME (PQI I believe) to IAD.

They use an OLD UA route map on their application though.

United and Skywest submitted separate and competing proposals.

UA to EWR:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -8012-0139

Skywest (UA code) to IAD:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -8012-0138

airportlover wrote:

tcaeyx wrote:

airportlover wrote:

IAD and LAX will not grow any further. There is no room at LAX

There may not be any significant growth at LAX in the immediate future, but it has been reported that there will be resumption of one international route out of LAX this year. Further down the line, a hypothetical T9 would also belong to UA, so there's that.

Yes, but one route doesn't make much of a difference in my mind. Especially if it is a minor market. Also will T9 ever get built with the state of infrastructure development in this country?

Summer 2018 vs 2017 UA will have added 7 new markets. UA has gained several additional gates at LAX beginning in the Spring.

ACV
FCA
MFR
MSO
RDM
SGU
SIN - obviously the biggest deal

IAD can grow if the area around it (particularly the south and west) grows. If Amazon puts there east coast HQ near there it would be a big boost as well.

tcaeyx wrote:

airportlover wrote:

There may not be any significant growth at LAX in the immediate future, but it has been reported that there will be resumption of one international route out of LAX this year. Further down the line, a hypothetical T9 would also belong to UA, so there's that.

Regarding the new/resumed LAX international flight that has been rumored, my first guesses are:
1) LAX-FRA - this is a monopoly route for the UA-LH JV, AB dropped out of the LAX-Germany market, and DL/AF/KL are able to make 3x daily flights work from LAX to their hubs in CDG and AMS. Add the fact that the A380 will be moving from LAX-FRA to LAX-MUC, and I think there's an opportunity for a 3rd daily to FRA. Also, this only uses one aircraft when rotated with other LAX longhaul routes.
2) LAX-HKG - UA has NRT, PVG, and SIN covered from LAX (all major financial centers and ports), and HKG would complement these nicely. There would be a lot more competitive headwinds though, as CX has 3x daily flights, AA has 1x daily, and HX will be entering the market.

Whatever new route is started, I'd expect it to be on the 789.

I remember reading that Kirby said UA plans to grow 50% in Denver in an amount of time I can’t remember. What I want to know is, where are they going to grow? I can’t think of too many domestic markets that they don’t serve, even with just United Express. Upguagung certainly could be a part of that, but I can’t imagine it will get them there alone. I don’t see too much international expansion either since it’s Denver.

I am impressed at how agressive they’ve been. Adding non stops to SIN from SFO and LAX is big, and entering the Tahiti market as well is impressive. Not to mention IAH-SYD either. It will be fun to see what else UA announces this year!

airportlover wrote:

I see them adding more Asian cities from SFO and increasing mainline between nonhub major cities and EWR, which bore the brunt of the RJ transition. I mean, ATL was all RJs until June 2017! That's crazy!!! European expansion will remain subdued for now, but I see additions of smaller European cities in the cards, like Prague, Budapest, Krakow, Riga, Moscow, even Graz or St Petersburg or Helsinki from EWR. They really need to grow the European network from EWR. It is already strong, but they are missing a few cities. Also forgot to mention Nice and Malaga. The addition of Porto and Reykjavik is very useful. They are both very popular destinations from New York.

I think, United's secondary/interior China strategy is dead. The most likely adds from SFO would most probably be to South East Asia. Something like BKK, SGN considering the success of United's Singapore routes (I understand that Singapore is totally different but they have proved these ULH routes can work).

Also, Continental's smaller European market strategy from EWR is less important now with United. We have seen a lot of markets dropped, however, some routes may be added would be more seasonal, (think OPO, KEF). If KEF is successful from EWR then it wouldn't surprise me if the added KEF from IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN.

Domestically, I would expect to see more leisure routes operating sub-weekly to destinations like RAP, HDN, BZM. However, any meaningful expansion domestically would require more narrow bodies.

But how about Africa? If Delta can make Africa work from JFK then surely UA can do it from EWR. How about LOS, JNB, DKR or a seasonal flight to CMN.

In terms of South America, I would expect a lot of it to be left to Avianca.

Do United have any gates space during peak times for extra routes at SFO?

fry530 wrote:

...even with just United Express. Upguagung certainly could be a part of that, but I can’t imagine it will get them there alone.

I did a quick and dirty, 5-minute web search and found a few upgrade opportunities for UA out of DEN. What I would personally consider major markets out of DEN still see either all regional jets or a combination of mainline and regional. ATL, ABQ, DFW, MCI, OMA, STL, SMF and TUS.

UA should be able to match mainline service on any route a competitor flies.

Themotionman wrote:

airportlover wrote:

I see them adding more Asian cities from SFO and increasing mainline between nonhub major cities and EWR, which bore the brunt of the RJ transition. I mean, ATL was all RJs until June 2017! That's crazy!!! European expansion will remain subdued for now, but I see additions of smaller European cities in the cards, like Prague, Budapest, Krakow, Riga, Moscow, even Graz or St Petersburg or Helsinki from EWR. They really need to grow the European network from EWR. It is already strong, but they are missing a few cities. Also forgot to mention Nice and Malaga. The addition of Porto and Reykjavik is very useful. They are both very popular destinations from New York.

I think, United's secondary/interior China strategy is dead. The most likely adds from SFO would most probably be to South East Asia. Something like BKK, SGN considering the success of United's Singapore routes (I understand that Singapore is totally different but they have proved these ULH routes can work).

Also, Continental's smaller European market strategy from EWR is less important now with United. We have seen a lot of markets dropped, however, some routes may be added would be more seasonal, (think OPO, KEF). If KEF is successful from EWR then it wouldn't surprise me if the added KEF from IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN.

Domestically, I would expect to see more leisure routes operating sub-weekly to destinations like RAP, HDN, BZM. However, any meaningful expansion domestically would require more narrow bodies.

But how about Africa? If Delta can make Africa work from JFK then surely UA can do it from EWR. How about LOS, JNB, DKR or a seasonal flight to CMN.

In terms of South America, I would expect a lot of it to be left to Avianca.

Maybe, but I think UA really should focus on smaller European destinations. They can certainly fill a plane to any of those cities, especially if there is no JFK alternative. This worked for Continental, and UA should add more European destinations from EWR. If they want to build up EWR, they need to add more European cities to create an even better transatlantic/northeast hub.

I think Africa would work from EWR, maybe Lagos or Johannesburg. However, they seem to leave Africa to the Star Alliance, which is unfortunate.

jetblastdubai wrote:

fry530 wrote:

...even with just United Express. Upguagung certainly could be a part of that, but I can’t imagine it will get them there alone.

I did a quick and dirty, 5-minute web search and found a few upgrade opportunities for UA out of DEN. What I would personally consider major markets out of DEN still see either all regional jets or a combination of mainline and regional. ATL, ABQ, DFW, MCI, OMA, STL, SMF and TUS.

UA should be able to match mainline service on any route a competitor flies.

Having Trans States at STL really kills the UA mainline here. It means we get a ton of 145s. IAD and EWR are usually only 145s year round. I would make UA my go to legacy carrier (because their hubs are where I travel the most) if they would even run a few bigger RJs a day places, but 145s keep me away. SFO is usually the only mainline and it isn't even that at the moment, although I perfer the E175s anyway. Just adding a DEN seasonal isn't going to move the needle much. ORD/EWR should have at least one each and put some 700/900/175s on IAD. I know Trans States has to rotate planes so until they get rid of 145s we are going to have them but I don't think a couple flights to each station on something else is too much to ask. I think they would get more FFs here if they did that also.

SumChristianus wrote:

Will Denver become a superhub like Charlotte for AA or Atlanta for DL?
How is United hampered (or not) by its lack of large 600+ flight hubs like AA and DL have?
United has started to grow again at Los Angeles and Washington Dulles, two airports Airliners.net has often rumored are to be cut as hubs. How will they grow from these airports in the future?
Is there a place for the CSeries or CRJ900 in United's fleet?
UA has increased DEN recently with numerous new regional EAS routes, like Kearney, Scottsbluff, Liberal, Cody, Cape Girardeau, and Moab. I hope they look at Riverton from DEN and IMT (taking over the DL/OO EAS bid) to ORD.

I don't think UA wants s superhub I think UA sees the value is spreading the work load between multiple hubs. Take for example hurricane Harvey that shut down IAH for days I know hurricanes normally keep moving but Harvey showed us what could happen if one stalls. Although IAH was closed UA was able to accommodate most of our connecting passengers who would have connected at IAH through other hubs or on nonstop flights. The exception was flights to Mexico and Central America, where AA came to our aide and help get our passengers to their final destination through their DFW hub. Even though Harvey cost UA millions the damage could have been far worst if IAH was a superhub because there would have been no way for for UA's remaining hubs to absorb the massive number of connecting passengers that a superhub serves. Just think about the number of passengers DL connects at ATL, if ATL was shut down for days could DL's other hubs accommodate all those connecting passengers. I don't think so because there is such a large disparity between the number of flights at ATL and DL's other hubs.
Going forward I believe DEN will continue to experience growth. Denver's economy and furthermore Colorado's economy is on fire right now, and although WN has a hub at DEN as well I think UA has a slight edge. UA like WN not only has access to Denver's growing O&D market but UAX gives UA access to passengers in those smaller cities and communities throughout the entire state of Colorado. So as the narrow body fleet grows (UA is scheduled to start taking delivery of 737-9MAX this year, and as far as I know there are no plans as of yet to retire any narrow body aircraft) I think the growth we are seeing at DEN will continue. However as UA grows domestically I think UA will have to start adding more year around international flights across the Atlantic and Pacific. I think in 2019 DEN-LHR on UA will operate year around and I think we will see more international destinations added in 2019 from DEN because our widebody fleet is growing. While I don't think the 787-10 will be utilized on international routes from DEN I think the addition of this aircraft and the addition of the 4 77Ws we are taking delivery of this year will allow UA to shuffle around the widebody fleet to free up some 788s or perhaps some 789s allowing UA to grow internationally from DEN.

As far as LAX I think the plan is clear UA already has started to grow this hub and has added quite a few domestic and international flights, as soon as UA gains access to more gates I think LAX can once again become a reliever hub for SFO although not quite to the extent that is was in the 90s.
IAD has been pulled from the brink of being dehubbed but I'm not sure the plan to grow IAD is as clear as the plans are for hubs like DEN and LAX. DCA and to some extent BWI are the preferred airports and there is nothing UA or any other airline can do to change peoples preference. I think once the Silver Line construction is completed the actual line reaches IAD locals might consider IAD as an alternative airport. But in addition to the Silver Line the airport itself and in particular UA's concourses need to be updated. UA needs to invest money into this airport like they have done at EWR, ORD,IAH, SFO, and LAX, so far UA hasn't and that needs to change.
So to answer your question I think the only thing we know for certain about IAD is it will not be dehubbed. But in terms of growth I think the growth at IAD will continue to move at a snails pace if not slower when compared to other hubs.

UA's current LAX growth is the result of a couple of cuts (OKC and MSP), some upgauging and cuts to hub-to-hub flying, as well as some freeing up of some gates after construction is completed this year.

Any further growth is now tied to them getting T9, which can't be done until the Eagle's Nest operations are moved (I think the plan is for T5). That can't happen until they find somewhere to put those airlines, which many will probably end up in the MSC, which is under construction. Still a lot of moving parts before all of that is completed.

I think that's the ultimate plan that is...

SFO is pretty much maxed out right now as well. Gate holds are becoming more frequent. Hopefully some of the new LAX routes (and DEN) can take off some of the pressure they have created there. Would also like to see some more ORD to West Coast routes like the more recent FAT route, but gates are a problem there too and the E175 is getting pushed to its limits on range/payload.

Rdh3e wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I think he was saying he could see that as a possible addition, not that it was already added.

Sorry, I've heard it rumored as in consideration on this site, and it fits their apparent recent strategy of increasing regional feed into their hubs (and in ORD challenging AA monopolies for connecting passengers.

Both UA and AA have been going tit-for-tat in recent times. UA added AZO/EVV/RST and now BIS and ELP. AA has been knocking off some of UAs like ASE/BZN/CHS/GSO/GSP. UA's list is a lot longer though (in terms of places AA doesn't serve) so it makes you wonder if we won't see more of AA doing this and less of UA.

AA Unique Chicago CIties (July 2018):
ALO
BMI
DBQ
JFK
LSE
MEI
MHK
MQT
PSP
SUX
TOL

UA Unique Chicago Cities (July 2018):
ABE
ANC
AVL
AVP
BIL
CAE
CGI
CKB
CMX
CRW
DLH
EAU
ERI
EYW
FAI
FAT
FCA
GEG
GTF
HNL
IAD
JAN
LNK
LWB
MBS
MHT
MKG
MOB
OGG
PAH
PNS
ROA
SBN
SCE
SLN
SPI
SRQ
UIN
YOW
YQB
YWG

DBQ, BMI, PSP, and TOL seem the most likely AA monoplies for UA to enter.

Alburqueque could probably support an upgauge form the RJ's UA uses (to A319s)

If UA ever adds SWF, it would likely be from ORD as well.

With ORD's current gate situation and the newly rebanked schedule, growth will probably be mostly by upgauges.
Frequency growth will probably center on DEN, where I see FWA, LGB, AVL, and CHS as new routes. LAS, PHX, SEA, PDX, and SLC could use more frequencies on departures from DEN's major westbound banks.
I don't know how DEN's new bank structure is timed, but I think they should shift the first major westbound bank from 11 am to 9 am, and the late westbound bank from 7 pm to 8:30 pm. Shifting these banks earlier and later along with a few other shifts would enable DEN to accomodate a smaller 3 PM omnidirectional bank.
I see DEN's optimal stucture as:
8 AM Omnidirectional frequency/short haul/connecting from Hawaii/Alaska
9AM Westbound
10 AM Eastbound
12 PM Omnidirectional
3 PM Omnidirectional
5 PM Short haul omnidirectional
6 PM Eastbound (IND, LGA, CLT, etc
8 PM Westbound (LAX, SMF, SEA, etc.
9 PM Shorthaul RONs (SLC, COS, ABQ, etc.)
This wouldn't be a prefect system, and I don't know all the constraints of scheduling, but it seems UA can get a little more utilization out of aircraft through its DEN hub by mimicking DL's SLC timing to an extent.

ericm2031 wrote:

UA's current LAX growth is the result of a couple of cuts (OKC and MSP), some upgauging and cuts to hub-to-hub flying, as well as some freeing up of some gates after construction is completed this year.

Any further growth is now tied to them getting T9, which can't be done until the Eagle's Nest operations are moved (I think the plan is for T5). That can't happen until they find somewhere to put those airlines, which many will probably end up in the MSC, which is under construction. Still a lot of moving parts before all of that is completed.

I think that's the ultimate plan that is...

SFO is pretty much maxed out right now as well. Gate holds are becoming more frequent. Hopefully some of the new LAX routes (and DEN) can take off some of the pressure they have created there. Would also like to see some more ORD to West Coast routes like the more recent FAT route, but gates are a problem there too and the E175 is getting pushed to its limits on range/payload.

I don't understand why UA gave up those 60's gates a few years ago, then decide that they want to grow at LAX and find themselves in a position where they can't effectively do so. I realize that giving up underutilized real estate makes sense in general, but at an airport where you know capacity is tight, there are two other players (AA and DL) who are aggressively seeking to build market share, and there is a cap on gates, it just doesn't seem as though it makes/made sense.

gwrudolph wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

UA's current LAX growth is the result of a couple of cuts (OKC and MSP), some upgauging and cuts to hub-to-hub flying, as well as some freeing up of some gates after construction is completed this year.

Any further growth is now tied to them getting T9, which can't be done until the Eagle's Nest operations are moved (I think the plan is for T5). That can't happen until they find somewhere to put those airlines, which many will probably end up in the MSC, which is under construction. Still a lot of moving parts before all of that is completed.

I think that's the ultimate plan that is...

SFO is pretty much maxed out right now as well. Gate holds are becoming more frequent. Hopefully some of the new LAX routes (and DEN) can take off some of the pressure they have created there. Would also like to see some more ORD to West Coast routes like the more recent FAT route, but gates are a problem there too and the E175 is getting pushed to its limits on range/payload.

I don't understand why UA gave up those 60's gates a few years ago, then decide that they want to grow at LAX and find themselves in a position where they can't effectively do so. I realize that giving up underutilized real estate makes sense in general, but at an airport where you know capacity is tight, there are two other players (AA and DL) who are aggressively seeking to build market share, and there is a cap on gates, it just doesn't seem as though it makes/made sense.

The about-face happened because of the management change. Smisek was fine gradually cutting LAX, but Scott Kirby is much more aggressive in every sense of the word.

airportlover wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

airportlover wrote:

I see them adding more Asian cities from SFO and increasing mainline between nonhub major cities and EWR, which bore the brunt of the RJ transition. I mean, ATL was all RJs until June 2017! That's crazy!!! European expansion will remain subdued for now, but I see additions of smaller European cities in the cards, like Prague, Budapest, Krakow, Riga, Moscow, even Graz or St Petersburg or Helsinki from EWR. They really need to grow the European network from EWR. It is already strong, but they are missing a few cities. Also forgot to mention Nice and Malaga. The addition of Porto and Reykjavik is very useful. They are both very popular destinations from New York.

I think, United's secondary/interior China strategy is dead. The most likely adds from SFO would most probably be to South East Asia. Something like BKK, SGN considering the success of United's Singapore routes (I understand that Singapore is totally different but they have proved these ULH routes can work).

Also, Continental's smaller European market strategy from EWR is less important now with United. We have seen a lot of markets dropped, however, some routes may be added would be more seasonal, (think OPO, KEF). If KEF is successful from EWR then it wouldn't surprise me if the added KEF from IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN.

Domestically, I would expect to see more leisure routes operating sub-weekly to destinations like RAP, HDN, BZM. However, any meaningful expansion domestically would require more narrow bodies.

But how about Africa? If Delta can make Africa work from JFK then surely UA can do it from EWR. How about LOS, JNB, DKR or a seasonal flight to CMN.

In terms of South America, I would expect a lot of it to be left to Avianca.

Maybe, but I think UA really should focus on smaller European destinations. They can certainly fill a plane to any of those cities, especially if there is no JFK alternative. This worked for Continental, and UA should add more European destinations from EWR. If they want to build up EWR, they need to add more European cities to create an even better transatlantic/northeast hub.

I think Africa would work from EWR, maybe Lagos or Johannesburg. However, they seem to leave Africa to the Star Alliance, which is unfortunate.

Norwegian, WOW, and Icelandair are surely poaching some of UA's European passengers. That said, Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Dusseldorf, and Lyon, could be viable future destinations out of EWR.

I think AA, out of MIA, will be the next U.S. carrier to South Africa, but UA will probably resume Lagos flights from IAH if oil prices (and their corresponding traffic) rise.

ORD-TLV will probably be UA's next route to the Middle East.

SumChristianus wrote:

Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Dusseldorf, and Lyon, could be viable future destinations out of EWR.

EWR-VIE already has UA's JV partner OS. EWR-WAW already has UA's Star Alliance partner LO. EWR-SVO/DME could maybe work on a 763, although I believe most of the NYC Russian population is in Brooklyn.

I'd like to see UA take EWR-DUS over from LH and fly it daily with a 763 or 764. LH has a lone 333 based at DUS for that route as of now, which can't be very efficient... EWR-LYS doesn't seem out of the question on a 752, but I'm not sure that's the next logical add from EWR.

Rdh3e wrote:

airportlover wrote:

tcaeyx wrote:

There may not be any significant growth at LAX in the immediate future, but it has been reported that there will be resumption of one international route out of LAX this year. Further down the line, a hypothetical T9 would also belong to UA, so there's that.

Yes, but one route doesn't make much of a difference in my mind. Especially if it is a minor market. Also will T9 ever get built with the state of infrastructure development in this country?

Summer 2018 vs 2017 UA will have added 7 new markets. UA has gained several additional gates at LAX beginning in the Spring.

ACV
FCA
MFR
MSO
RDM
SGU
SIN - obviously the biggest deal

It's interesting to note that UA has dropped LAX-MSY, MSP & OKC. Are they turning LAX into more of a solely west coast hub?

psa1011 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Yes, but one route doesn't make much of a difference in my mind. Especially if it is a minor market. Also will T9 ever get built with the state of infrastructure development in this country?

Summer 2018 vs 2017 UA will have added 7 new markets. UA has gained several additional gates at LAX beginning in the Spring.

ACV
FCA
MFR
MSO
RDM
SGU
SIN - obviously the biggest deal

It's interesting to note that UA has dropped LAX-MSY, MSP & OKC. Are they turning LAX into more of a solely west coast hub?

To some extent that appears to be true - there are very few markets east of Texas that UA serves from LAX that aren't other UA hubs: just CLE (former hub), MCO, BWI (summer only), and BOS, domestically. ORD, IAD, and EWR are all UA hubs, and UA maintains a strong presence in each those markets from LAX.

UA is very strong in the western U.S. and there is lots of competition in many of the midcon/transcon routes out of LAX, so it makes some sense that they are concentrating on their strengths.

FSDan wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Dusseldorf, and Lyon, could be viable future destinations out of EWR.

I'd like to see UA take EWR-DUS over from LH and fly it daily with a 763 or 764. LH has a lone 333 based at DUS for that route as of now, which can't be very efficient... EWR-LYS doesn't seem out of the question on a 752, but I'm not sure that's the next logical add from EWR.

LH has already mentioned that EWR-DUS will switch to EW in early 2019.

IAD is growing, but the costs and distance make it hard. If DCA completely fills up, and the Dulles area continues to grow, IAD will be in a better position, but I still see it and the UA hub as struggling for the next few years.

DCA still has a lot of regional jet frequencies, so there's plenty of room for flights to be upgauged there.

Until it fills up completely, or close to it, IAD is competing for scraps on flights within the DCA perimeter. Even with the low local demand, UA will still need to keep its network at IAD attractive to its frequent flyers and I can see the following domestic routes as possibilities for United at IAD.
Milwaukee: Daily CRJ700
Kansas City: Daily E170
West Palm Beach: Daily E175
Miami: Daily E175

They wouldn't attract any high percentage of Washington O&D demand on these routes, but they would provide an alternative transatlantic connection airport to EWR and ORD, while at least offering United a presence in the Washington D.C. market from these cities.

Do you think the CRJ900 would work in United's fleet? They may have to consider it if the MRJ and E175E2 remain too heavy for current pilot scope contracts. Its cheaper to operate (I believe, but can't say for certain) than the current E175 and is abundant in the domestic fleets of AA and DL?
I think it would make a great CRJ200/E145 replacement on short-haul flights (even for CRJ700s as UA's configuration and pilot contract make that type less optimal than it is for AA as a "largest small RJ").

United and Skywest submitted separate and competing proposals.

UA to EWR:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -8012-0139

Skywest (UA code) to IAD:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -8012-0138

It looks like the Northern Maine Regional Airport has recommended the United to Newark bid. I was under the impression that United removed all 50 seat jets from its fleet? Would this be subbed out Skywest or Express jet? What type of equipment are they likely to use on that route?

SumChristianus wrote:

I can see the following domestic routes as possibilities for United at IAD.
Milwaukee: Daily CRJ700
Kansas City: Daily E170
West Palm Beach: Daily E175
Miami: Daily E175

UA already flies IAD-MCI with 2x daily CR7 (and it goes up to 3x in the summer).