Earlier today I wrote about United ending its nonstop service between Los Angeles and Singapore. Does this move signal the Los Angeles hub is in danger?
Los Angeles is such a tough market. American and Delta also maintain hubs in Los Angeles. Competition is fierce. Carriers from around the world offer nonstop longhauls to LAX. Sometimes these are legacy routes by flag carriers that lose money but continue to operate for national prestige. This skews pricing.
And that leaves United in a precarious position.
Concerning United’s future intentions in Los Angeles, United continues to affirms its commitment to LAX:
While LAX based customers will no longer have a nonstop flight, they will have more choice of arrival and departure times to Singapore via the one-stop SFO connection. United operates four other nonstop trans-Pacific routes from LAX: NRT, PVG (Shanghai), SYD (Sydney) and MEL (Melbourne). We remain committed to serving these markets.
(bolding mine)
United also told me privately it fully committed to its LAX hub and focusing more on domestic travel.
But I have to wonder how Shanghai is doing. I wonder how London is doing with so much competition. I get that United essentially offers nonstop flights to Frankfurt and Munich as well via its joint-venture partner Lufthansa, but what about other routes? Might Paris work? Delta and Norwegian started nonstop flights between Los Angeles and Paris this year, Air France runs 2-3 daily flights, and Air Tahiti Nui also operates between LAX and CDG. Sometimes I wonder if competing at LAX is just futile.
> Read More: The Real Reason LAX is Still a United Hub
> Read More: United Cuts International Routes, Will Focus on Domestic Travel
CONCLUSION
As an Angeleno and loyal United flyer, I do not attempt to hide the fact that I’m rooting for UA at LAX. Even so, I increasingly recognize what a difficult market LAX is and simply cannot blame United for abandoning Singapore. Let’s just hope that is the only cut. My fear is that Shanghai is next.
> Read More: United Doubles Singapore Service from SFO, Cuts LAX-SIN Flight
image: Glenn Beltz / FLICKR
The data shows that flyers do not pick UA if there are other similarly priced options for nonstop flights. That’s why UA is so reliant on its fortress hubs, and doesn’t do point-to-point flying like other airlines.
UA has an established base in CA, but when airlines like DL continue to pull ahead, it’s not surprising that UA at LAX is starting to have problems.
Frankly, who would want to fly UA when there are better options available?
UA dropping LAX-SIN is no reflection of its ability to compete at LAX. That SIN flight is almost the world’s longest flight, and it therefore inherently a money loser. The fact that UA already offers SFO-SIN and compete head to head with SQ, perhaps the best airline in the world, shows UA still can get it done. But not even AA wants to risk the LAX-SIN route due to its length and opportunity cost—and AA has no other option to SIN. Nor does DL.
UA will maintain its significant hub presence at LAX due to network feed serving its interests. So many *A carriers feed LAX that it is a perfect feed to UA’s domestic network. UA also maintains nonstop service based on O/D traffic in LA, which makes NRT, PVG, SYD. MEL, LHR all pretty safe for the time being—especially based on corporate contracts.
Jeff Smisek was right to trim down that LAX hub. Sure, the United employees would want the hub to remain, but the writing is on the wall, United cannot keep that hub. There really is nowhere they can fly without competition. And United is the awkward kid at PE (physical education) who would always be the last choice. People pick AA, DL or a foreign carrier over United. This is why they have to rely on hubs where they are #1 and LAX is not that hub. Jeff Smisek was smart to concentrate everything in SFO where they have the dominant position and where Alaska and Southwest are actually retreating. SFO is where United can win and where they should focus.
Were committed to LAX via a stop in SFO. Perfect.
United will keep flying LAX-PVG since it would be difficult to get approval to move the route to another American city.
PVG Market is competitive since DL and AA both offer daily flight and China Eastern offers twice per day. But I believe the market is much bette than SIN since the partnership between CA and UA. UA’s domestic flight is already weak compare to DL and AA, I fly to ATL often, at least AA offers a nonstop, UA is completely out of that market becasue they are afraid of DL.
UA Premier check-in sucks. Limited staff usually on phones and chatting with each other. Unfriendly group.
United club Lounge staffed with front-end grumpy older staff. Definition of bitter, and don’t distract them from their phones.
UA @ LAX has been great for Asia mileage runs: Singapore at $500 rt, Narita @ $725 (vs $2100 via SFO).
United made a mistake in giving up too many gates in T6
UA once flew LAX-FRA. Why haven’t they restored that? With the onward connections at FRA they should be able to get yield and traffic. Yes, there is a JV with LH, but UA”s elites don’t get upgrades, GS dollars etc
LAWA is committed to gate/operational parity between DL, UA, AA, and WN. They do not want a dominate fortress hubb carrier and LAX is really an O&D market anyway. I applaud UA for pulling this flight so quickly. If it’s not making money, or the shell could make more elsewhere then redeploy the asset. Previously this would’ve been a loss leader for years before someone had the guts to kill it.