I thought the same thing. Pity.

A lot that could have been followed up on. He says:

He mentioned all the new United routes to secondary China cities, but no mention of how they are going to be at the front end of service to Southeast Asia. BKK is the natural spot for that.

 

United is starting SFO-SIN.

 

... except that, clearly, EWR p.s. isn't a failure.

Planes are full, folks are paying for the lieflats, metal is getting up gauged. We're seeing 777's on p.s. routes, which wouldn't have happened at JFK.

If that's "unmitigated failure", I'll take failure all day.

 

Good point. He did mention that along with the China cities.

I am still hopeful for United service to BKK again in the near future.

 

Right... I think you missed my sarcasm! Clearly, United saw advantages to moving p.s. to EWR, and the results (upgauged equipment, schedule on target with predictions) would seem to suggest that, at minimum, the service is meeting expectations.

It's a tongue-in-cheek remark that perhaps a UA executive proclaiming the p.s.-to-EWR transition was a failure would actually be more well-received on FT!

 

I don't want to get too off topic but the MWAA is a major problem. I wish Congress would address their oversight in any FAA bill but that's unlikely to happen. MWAA is a dumping ground for MD/VA/DC political cronies. No real vision with them which is probably why UA is so frustrated. They think they can survive w/o a hub which is crazy!

I bet any deal that UA cuts with MWAA would include some type of commitment on a new terminal. MWAA/IAD would not likely agree to lowering fees if they don't get something in return like a new terminal that could drive more capacity etc...

 

Yes, a big leap to VP from MD

 

And I'll bet that new terminal gets a branch of the OTG food services monopoly, with pricing and services like EWR.

 

Agreed. Most things UA does these days is modeled after late 90s-early 2000s CO - PR especially.

I think it's safe to say that they will right-size LAX and IAD but there was never a risk of any kind of pull out. The problem with LAX is DL & AA have greatly expanded there over the last several years and UA has shrunk (they have - he's definitely wrong on this one.) So ultimately they have been less competitive at LAX even with regards to hard and soft product - not just routes.

The PS comment I honestly don't believe at all. Perhaps it's surpassed expectations for UA, but they lost valuable biz traffic to DL & AA as a result. Also he didn't account for folks who used to fly LAX/SFO-JFK and connected there on premium star alliance carriers that weren't at EWR.

 

How is BKK the natural spot for that? It is lower-yielding than SIN or HKG. And the competition within the region is heavily weighted to LCCs.

 

No - United knew what it was doing when it left JFK and knew that some people would leave it. No doubt there whatsoever. And they were fine with that. They have enough corporate contracts and there's enough good / high yield traffic going to EWR that it made sense for them to concentrate on that airport to serve the region.

What "premium" Star Alliance carriers at JFK that aren't at EWR are you talking about? Or that aren't at LAX or SFO? SQ doesn't count. What airlines are you talking about?
The highest value West coast premium traffic takes nonstop from those west coast gateways. Period. The minute there's a connection involved it's because the price is cheaper. Hardly premium. Either way, UA makes more money and keeps more by serving the O/D traffic on California- New York and not by connecting them/ handing them off to another carrier. The ps move was right given the carrier that UA is now.

 

Sorry the facts don't match the view from your glasses.

What 'premium' Star connections are there at JFK that you can't get out of LAX?

LH, LX are the only 3 cabin first products to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and both serve LAX. No meaningful number of premium fliers will do LAX-JFK (change to Terminal 1 and sit in security for an hour) - XXX.

Accept the reality he's dead right that the JFK pullout was written 20 years ago.

UA had every asset to build a hub in the largest air market in the US in the 90s - the slots, the fleet, the people, and it failed spectacularly.

Meanwhile CO built one that lasts today.

I love Dulles as much as anyone, but DL, AA, CO showed you need an int'l hub in NYC to be relevant.

 

Hahah, whoops! It's not too often that sarcasm goes completely over my head, but there it goes... whoosh!

Sorry... been a rough week. Not operating at my best.

 

HKG is not in SEA. BKK is in the heart of it. And it certainly seems like LCCs are all over Asia. Not sure that is unique to BKK.

I don't have access to the data, but it feels like there is much greater connectivity from BKK to the rest of SEA when compared to HKG...and maybe SIN, though I don't have a good feel for there. A quick check of public schedules for a couple of SEA cities from BKK, HKG, and SIN shows Bangkok with much greater frequencies.

I believe there would be great value for United to restore BKK to their network. As I was reading the article, I hoped they would at least hint at it, but no joy.

 

If there were "great value" in BKK, United would have kept it. they don't just axe destinations for "fun" and to annoy people on this web site.

Instead they kept SIN from both NRT and HKG. And they're starting SIN - SFO.

That should tell you something about the "value" of each.

As far as connectivity, your feelings about connectivity don't really matter. They've all got connectivity to Asia.

At the end of the day, BKK is a much more leisure-focused destination with lower average fares, while SIN is a much more corporate-focused market with higher average fares. End of story.