United Airlines

[Jerry]

That is possible, but seems unlikely. As you say, ORD is not really a major DL hub so the focus really should have been on O&D traffic.

As well SEA is a DL hub as well as an Alaska hub so it may offer a lot of better onward connections for VS than ORD and VS doesn't have an infinite amount of aircraft and slots at LHR so they will have to make business decisions and some of them maybe decided by DL when it comes to the american market.

 

[Dobbo]

It's probably right that they think they can make more profit deploying an aircraft elsewhere.

MAN-IAD presumably fell into the same category albeit on a different scale.

 

[Land23R]

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38...-s17-long-haul-service-changes-as-of-16dec16/

Plenty of a/c changes but no mention of an upgrade to our EWR, only the IAD cancelled.
I suspect we'll be stuck with the B757 despite speculation to the contrary. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Dobbo]

Me too, but if they stick with the B752 we all know how it will end. I suspect they (and a number of others) will haemorrhage passengers to VS on the New York and other direct routes to the USA.

 

[ethanegcc]

It seems like many Boeing 763s will become available though, so unless they are being retired then, who knows?

 

[Dobbo]

I don't really know enough about UAs fleet plans to comment on their plans.

However, the issues they might have to deal with is that I'm sure SQ will pick up a number of passengers on the A350 to IAD and we think AC mainline might reappear when they have more B788s in the fleet.

Although part of the same alliance they will clearly attract some of UAs connecting traffic. UA will face difficulties capturing the point to point market for the reasons stated earlier.

 

[ethanegcc]

I wish UA would codeshare on SQ MAN-IAH. It would be the obvious decision.

 

[rutamkrd]

I wish UA would codeshare on SQ MAN-IAH. It would be the obvious decision.

Why ?

They didn't codeshare via Moscow.

Exactly what benefit are you expecting - To buy a UA ticket MAN-IAH - xyz on SQ with a markup on the SQ price, when UA would rather continue to route you through EWR.

No what this route does is give Singapore access beyond IAH using UA feed - Emphasis SQ benefit from UA over IAH and that's what the limited codeshare is about.

But it's not going to be a United service MAN-IAH any time soon.

I'll say again not all codeshares are equal.

 

[ethanegcc]

They didn't codeshare via Moscow, but having dropped one destination with many members suggesting the reason for this sas SQ to IAH a codeshare would make sense to offer passengers connections through a Texan hub from Manchester. This is a way of them adding capacity without increasing EWR, which they look unlikely to do.

I am not saying a joint venture where the route would be metal neutral, so UA would never serve the route.

 

[Coathanger16]

I think the main reason United won't code share with SQ on MAN - IAH is they don't want to lose passengers from their MAN - EWR service. I'm pretty sure most of the places you could connect from IAH with United you could also connect from EWR with United. For instance, Manchester to Denver you could have:

Manchester - Newark - Denver (all United)
Manchester - Houston (Singapore) Houston - Denver (United)

If United were to code share on Manchester to Houston, I imagine they fear they will lose passengers from their Manchester - Newark flight to the Singapore Airlines flight.

Does anyone know what percentage of passengers on the United flights to Newark are connecting onto other flights and how many are travelling to New York.

 

[ethanegcc]

But wouldn't the launch of a whole new flight to IAD, lost them customers on their EWR route? Those passengers could, hypothetically, now travel on the EWR flight which would make a well performing flight, even more full which surely would need more capacity? I understand the point of them not wanting to lose passengers on their NYC services but a codeshare to a UA hub, not geographically close to the one currently served, can not hurt, if there is over demand to Newark and a 752 just won't cut it. I suppose to find that out, they will have to see what the situation is like next summer.

Having services to EWR and IAH (as a codeshare) is surely more economical and logical than having services to two of the closest UA hubs on their entire network (EWR and IAD) and would drain less passengers from Newark?

If, as members of this forum speculate, they were to launch an ORD flight, surely this more adversely affects EWR? EDI is a much smaller market, with two daily flights to Newark and one to Chicago in peak season! Surely a codeshare to help support the route of a fellow alliance partner and serve a fairly large unserved market (until now) from Texas with a US carrier's code isn't that far-fetched?

 

[Dobbo]

I don't think there is any love lost between them. Just look at the recent SIN-SFO route launches.

 

[Coathanger16]

I suppose at the end of the day you've got to ask what does a code share on this route do for United?

In my opinion, not much. I respect others will disagree with that though.

 

[rutamkrd]

I have come back simply put they don't have legal authority for an intermediate codeshare - These are rather rare animals as they require 6th and 7th freedoms in addition to 5th Freedom treaty conditions.

EU-US openskys allows EU and US carriers to operate from any point between treaty states but not for domestic sectors. Any flight shall be by aircraft registered in signatory states- Look at Norwegians issues.

Singapore and the US have similar openskys.

However the MAN-IAH sector meets none of these conditions.

The flight may well gain a codeshare IAH- SIN at some point however UA still won't be able to market the IAH-MAN-IAH as a codeshare any time soon.

The only thing UA can expect is feed from Singapore ticket holders to the selected and authorised SQ codeshare points - Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando (in addition to the VS codeshare), Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa where Singapore has code authority.

Beyond that it simple interline arrangements.

BTW they can't codeshare on the intermediate FRA-NYC sector either.

 

[rutamkrd]

I have come back simply put they don't have legal authority for an intermediate codeshare - These are rather rare animals as they require 6th and 7th freedoms in addition to 5th Freedom treaty conditions.

EU-US openskys allows EU and US carriers to operate from any point between treaty states but not for domestic sectors. Any flight shall be by aircraft registered in signatory states- Look at Norwegians issues.

Singapore and the US have similar openskys.

However the MAN-IAH sector meets none of these conditions.

The flight may well gain a codeshare IAH- SIN at some point however UA still won't be able to market the IAH-MAN-IAH as a codeshare any time soon.

The only thing UA can expect is feed from Singapore ticket holders to the selected and authorised SQ codeshare points - Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando (in addition to the VS codeshare), Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa where Singapore has code authority.

Beyond that it simple interline arrangements.

BTW they can't codeshare on the intermediate FRA-NYC sector either.

At its simplist the key point is you actual have to have traffic rights between points before you can ever stick your code on another carriers service and united don't have those rights on a 5th Freedom carrier route.

 

[David_itl]

Here's something to contemplate why UA is reticent to go to 76W on our EWR route:

UA 75Ws appear to be operated as 16 J 153 Y.
UA's 76W appears to be operated as 30 J 184 Y

An additional 14 J class passenger to get on board. If IAD was pulling in the J class traffic, then we'd still be having the route existing. The only thing that could be said about only having a single UA service is that in theory J class should now be sold out more often than not. Whether there's enough pent up demand for them to consider upgrading I'm not sure - if we're talking well in excess of 22 J class bookings then perhaps. As for the "lost" Y class passenger, I'm pretty sure Thomas Cook/DL/Virgin will do a suitable job in getting these passengers to their destination non-stop.

 

[Dobbo]

It will be interesting to see whether EWR gets a bump with IAD's suspension at MAN, and EWR suspension at NCL and Belfast.

UAs fleet plans may also come into play. I don't know what their plans are for replacing ghe B752 and B763/4 (I assume the B787 replaces the 767).

I hope EWR performs well but MAN (and quite frankly TATL ops in general) is way down the list of priority for UA.

 

[Coathanger16]

The vast majority of United 787's have gone on longer domestic routes and Pacific routes. I think the chances of seeing them doing TATL to anywhere but the main hubs is very slim.

 

[Dobbo]

I quite agree. I think the B763 is due to remain active for a while (refitted) so if they outlast the B752 I suspect that is the direction they will go.

Whether you are looking at an A321LR or a B757 replacement by the mid-2020's only time will tell.

 

[User001]

I've noticed in GDS that from 15th May next year, there seems to be a type change to 'B767' on the Newark flight.

Given flights cannot be booked that far in advance, I am in no position to confirm if this is a true type change yet, nor which type of B767 it will be (B764/B763).

I will update in due course.