While United Airlines’ route map is growing quite impressively on an international scale, since 2019 it has actually shrunk in terms of the number of destinations it serves domestically. United hopes to resume service to some of these domestic cities in a whole new way through its United Next growth initiative.
United Airlines Promises Growth, Will Rebuild Domestic Route Network
While the mainline pilot shortage is real, the regional jet pilot shortage is dire. Let’s first trace the problem and then how United is going to deal with it.
First, the untimely retirement of the Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia turboprop led to the discontinuation of air service in many small cities. That aircraft may not have been sustainable, but it was a workhouse and its small size connected many cities that otherwise struggled to support commercial air service.
That left the larger Embraer and Canadair regional jets that were still a fixture of United’s operations prior to the pandemic. These days, they still very much exist, but the relatively high cost of operation and pilot shortage make flying these jets relatively less attractive and regional carriers like SkyWest and Mesa who operate on behalf of United under United Express are having a lot of trouble filling up the flight deck.
The practical result has been that United has been forced to cut back service to many smaller cities, in some cases eliminating the only option for commercial air service. That includes:
- Abilene, Texas (ABI)
- Alexandria, Louisiana (AEX)
- College Station, Texas (CLL)
- Columbia, Missouri (COU)
- Destin-Fort Walton Beach, Florida (VPS)
- Evansville, Indiana (EVV)
- Flagstaff, Arizona (FLG)
- Kalamazoo, Michigan (AZO)
- Killeen, Texas (GRK)
- Lansing, Michigan (LAN)
- Monroe, Louisiana (MLU)
- Mosinee, Wisconsin (CWA)
- Ogdensburg, New York (OGS)
- Paine Field/Everett, Washington (PAE)
- Pierre, South Dakota (PIR)
- Plattsburgh, New York (PBG)
- Rochester, Minnesota (RST)
- San Angelo, Texas (SJT)
- San Luis Valley/Alamosa, Colorado (ALS)
- Santa Rosa, California (STS)
- Stockton, California (SCK)
- Tallahassee, Florida (TLH)
- Texarkana, Arkansas (TXK)
- Twin Falls, Idaho (TWF)
- Watertown, South Dakota (ATY)
The issue came up during United’s latest earnings call, with Andrew Nocella discussing the issue and offering his assurance a cornerstone of United Next is to strengthen and grow its domestic network:
“While international flying remains our focus, we also have plans to improve domestic margins by rebuilding and enhancing connectivity versus 2019, grow and engage faster than any other carrier and staying focused on our existing set of hubs. Domestic connectivity fell materially in the pandemic because we decided to retire about 300 regional jets.”
Just to stop right there, while United has long-wanted to retire these smaller jets and accelerated their demise by cutting ties with ExpressJet in 2021, the pilot problem is real: there are many still sitting idle.
“But our connectivity is growing every month as we take United Next deliveries, and that will continue to drive PRASM higher each month. Like the period from 2017 to 2019 when we grew RASM and margins by growing connectivity, we’ll do it once again but this time with large mainline jets preferred by our customers.”
PRASM measures passenger revenue per available seat mile while RASM measures total operating revenue per available seat mile. United here commits to growing connectivity, which means either adding destinations that have fallen off the route map or at least adding frequencies to other cities. I truly question whether some regional markets are large enough to support mainline, but this has been United’s promise since United Next was first announced two years ago. Now we will wait and see.
Finally, Nocella discusses the key of gauge (how many seats are on an aircraft) and how the incoming Airbus A321 and Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft will help enable growth.
“Gauge has also been a key gap and opportunity for United, larger gauge narrow-bodies with 190 or more seats operate with the best single line aisle margins in North America. The introduction of the A321 and MAX 10 were always a key enabler of our United Next age growth and margin growth. The potential of these larger jets is proven and further upside to United Airlines when we finally enter the fleet.”
But in terms of domestic route map and destinations served, we won’t see Pierre, South Dakota or State College, Pennsylvania served with an A321…or even a 737-7. My hunch is mid to large cities will see upgrades in air service, while the smallest airports will continue to lose air service. That’s a problem not only because those residents must drive farther to seek air service, but for a network carrier to fill up those larger new planes.
CONCLUSION
As the largest US carrier in terms of its international route map, we focus a lot on the new service cities and fancy widebody jets when it comes to United. But United also wants to be a leading domestic airline and hopes that domestic connectivity, a key premise of its hub and spoke system, will bounce back to 2019 levels and beyond. This time, however, it will be with larger mainline jets.
image: United Airlines
If UA decided to use A220s or turboprops (which was very unlikely from the start), they would have been able to continue serving a lot of these destinations. This would have allowed them to compete with DL and AA, where these two continue to use CRJs and E-170/175s. What’s interesting is that a lot of these airpots and vicinities have a lot of frequent fliers and a lot of these airports have traffic at least around 200k/year, which certainly adds up.
Technically the CRJ 550 should be perfect for many of these markets you mention. But not enough of them out there (I think Go Jet has the most?) Many seem to be utilized from hubs to mid markets (like IAD-CVG I just flew this week). It probably comes down to the fact that there are not enough high yield passengers to justify sending them to Abilene or Twin Falls. Its the most comfortable RJ out there though given the unique config.
The A220 is an amazing aircraft, but the issue becomes how to incorporate it into the hubs. There are so many passengers that need to be moved, and occupying a mainline gate with a jet smaller than a B737-700 doesn’t seem to be as profitable when the airline can put a full A321 or B737 Max9 on it and increase revenue.
I believe UAL will need to serve smaller markets just to have the space for all the aircraft they have ordered. I think they are up to 40 new MAX aircraft this year and plan to accept over 100 next year. That, in my opinion, brings a unique problem for where to park them all (you can’t have red eyes everywhere can you?).
The 220-500 has the same # of seats as the 737-7 and shortly the 220+500 will be announced.
The 220 is a superior passenger comfort plane vs 737!
That’s one way to get more customers in small regional cities.
well even if it was to be announced, I doubt they will do anything till later this decade, the a220-500 would hurt a319/a320 sales
Again? Haven’t they been trying to do this since the merger? United talks too much, still runs a messy, delay prone operation, serves atrocious food, and has much more work to do.
No. You clearly haven’t followed and are choosing to add troll comments
I live in a small city in a rural state that is popular enough that we are not losing any service. The problem is, our fares are absurdly high. I literally can fly coast to coast for cheaper than it is to fly to the nearest hub airport. With all that is going on in the industry i unfortunately don’t see fares coming down. In our case, we need a low cost carrier to bring fares down. We definitely have the traffic for it. Every plane I’ve been on flys out full.
State “Collage”? Spelling mattrs in journalism.
Yes, it matters.
I have been flying from LAX to Newark in June and in July both times we had to wait for a gate. The flight in June and July were on 777- 200. The flight in June was an hour late coming in and we still had to wait over 25 minutes. The one in July was on time and early we got in at 4:11pm and finally got off the plane at 5:21 over an hour waiting for a gate. I like that United is going with bigger planes, but if you can’t get them into the gate, it’s a waste of my time. Bigger planes need a longer turnaround time.
EWR as a final destination or intl gateway is fine. To have to fly to EWR to get to another UA city is problematic. UA made it’s own bed by pushing more service to EWR (and ORD for that matter) that the place can handle.
The folk at the Chico Regional Airport in Chico, California, feel confident that they’ll secure service again in the near future. My expectations on United Express wouldn’t be all that high, but it would sure be great for me if United were the carrier they secured. (https://www.chicoer.com/2023/07/15/chico-ramping-up-for-air-service/)
But, TBH, I’d still fly that route no matter the carrier. I’ve done the 450-mile drive more than enough times in the past decade since they lost service.
Nice to see them start to transition from the CRJ 200 to the 170/175 on ORD to Wisconsin cities like Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Yes that united plane also shut down Carlsbad airport flight to LAX which I took every other Friday for mini vacations elsewhere.
I suspect that restoring service with larger aircraft means a tier-down effect. 70/76 seat regional flights will be replaced with mainline, those freed-up 70/76 seat jets will be used to fly routes currently served by 50-seaters, and the 50-seaters will be used to restore service to smaller markets.
I wonder what the economics of buying a smaller jet to use as mainline, such as the A220 or E190/195, would be under the new pilot agreement. The gap between 76 seats regional jets and the A319’s 126 is by far the biggest gap in passenger count in the entire fleet. Such a plane might make a lot of sense on, say, the shuttle service between DC and NY. (10x regional jets per day from DCA to EWR, 6x from IAD to LGA)
I think that’s going to be the most important question not just for UA, but for DL, AA, and AS going forward.
DL operates A220-100’s as niche planes, gradually replacing their 717’s, which they fly only because doing so allows DL to operate more 76-seat planes, not because they find a plane of that size particularly useful.
UA has had pay scales in their ALPA contract for CR9’s and A220-100’s (defined as the CS100) at least since 2011 and has no interest whatsoever in operating them. They have started their United Next refurbishment of their A319’s, but there hasn’t been a peep about doing do for their 40-odd 737-700’s, although that could just be a matter of timing. Still, they have over twice as many A319’s, so there’s one opportunity for fleet standardization by getting rid of the 737-700.
Except for WN, which is always a little diffferent, there has been virtually no interest in the 737-7 on the entire planet and Airbus couldn’t be less interested in selling an A319neo.
So that means by 2030 or so, the only planes at the bottom of the capacity range will be last-generation 76-sear EMB-175 and the A220-300 at 125-ish seats.
When airlines are splitting hairs between the 737-10 and the A321 to get another 20-seats, or less, that kind of gap has to be a problem.
Interesting that few comment about the E195 E2. It is quite common in Europe, so I would think the per-seat economics must be okay in terms of lease rate and fuel burn.
Yes, it has to be flown by mainline pilots in the US, but that is a matter of negotiation in terms of how to rate the aircraft for hourly pay, and I think it would be a good entry level plane for advancing the next gen of pilots at UA.
Seating around 110, with a 12 pax first, this would be a fine expansion of service aircraft.
What “many small cities” had their air service discontined when the Brasilias were grounded 8 years ago?
In California, for example:
-OXR
-SMX
-IPL
-CLD
IPL has service with 9 seaters thanks to the generosity of the US taxpayer.
Even with the generosity of the US taxpayer, SMX couldn’t keep it. Fortuneately, SMX is only about 25 miles from SBP, which has improved service since 2015.
CLD is just a tad further to SAN
OXR was a schedule reliability nightmare with fog on the CAT II Brasilias, the same reason UA dropped STSSFO back then.
CIC did lose its service. Again, a fog nightmare with CAT II.
While the Brasilia has low trip costs, it’s fixed costs per RPM are high compared to, say, a CRJ-200.
So I wouldn’t say that “many small cities had their air service discontined”,
The market is finally demanding that regional pilots have the same pay and benefits as their mainline counterparts. There is not a pilot shortage, just no longer a pilot surplus for regionals to exploit. They have pilots lined up out the door for interviews, just don’t make it worth it for them to continue their employment as a captain. Pilots now have options and it’s clear they don’t want to work for regionals. Better funding for EAS and better pilot contracts at regionals is the answer.
EAS? (Essential Air Service)? That mostly useless USA Congressional boondoggle that was only supposed to last a decade or so after airline deregulation?
Except for Alaska and Hawaii EAS wasn’t supposed be needed after the year 2020.
For profit commercial transportation options were supposed to take over any journeys that EAS serviced. Yes, that includes interstate and intrastate bus services. We can try to find some corporations to try using the new Cessna twin turboprop for the old EAS routes, but that seems unlikely to happen.
You’re right, it does seem unlikely to happen. The problem is that the routes will never be profitable, but people like their air service. So we’re left with a quandary. Congressional members in rural districts are very focused on maintaining air service for their constituents and many would rather undercut labor and safety to keep the regional status quo rather than expand the program. It’s a catch-22 for them.
“Better funding for EAS”?
Good Lord! Why should taxpayers pay EVEN MORE to subsidize air service for a handful of people in places where the market isn’t there?
The solutiion is just the opposite.
Get rid if that 1978 boondoggle and reduce the need for pilots.
Did you notice how many times in the call they said how they have “seven profitable hubs”? Aka I believe there will be build up at LAX, obviously we’ve seen the international build up there start but I bet there will be domestic build up as well. This management team clearly isn’t counting out LAX like previous ones.
They could be referring to GUM… LOL
Bring back the Big Boy!
Big Boy? The massive coal fired steam locomotive that pulled passenger trains along at 100 MPH?
When I lived north of NYC, Stewart airport (SWF) was my primary means of air transport. Back in the day, NorthWest , Delta, and USAir regionals were the lifeblood of the airport. Today, only one domestic (Allegiant) and two international (Atlantic Airlines to the Faroe Islands & Play to Iceland) provide scheduled service.
Folks will need to drive to Albany, or White Plains for service or fight the chaos of LGA, JFK, or EWR for direct service.
Once this crush of flight deck imbalance evens out, hopefully turbo or small jet regional service return. These small towns are a major source for the hub and focus city airports.
Given that the future is grim for regional jets, that’s not likely. By 2030, all but a handful of United’s CRJ’s and EMB145’s will be at least 25 years old and the rest 20. There is no replacement aircraft even under consideration by the airframe manufacturers,
Delta will have removed all of its 50-seaters operated by Skywest by the end of the year and roughly 40% of the CRJ’s operated for UA are parked.
If one started to work today at Commuteair or Piedmont, two regionals flying only single class 50-seaters, the chances of seeing 20 years of service, maybe even 10, at those airlines is miniscule.
There’s a revolution brewing at the regionals. We may get some clue as to what that is after all the new pilot contracts are done deals.