Welcome to the United Airlines Network thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the previous locked 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?t=1468679

New for 2023:
-IAD-BER/HND/2nd daily CDG
-EWR-DXB/AGP/HND/ARN (pre-COVID resumption)
-ORD-BCN/SNN
-SFO-FCO
-LAX-HND/2nd daily LHR
What I would like to see:
1) More TATL out of SFO (I know pre-COVID UA was going to launch SFO-DUB)
2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

rjbesikof, any resumption of PEK/PVG/HKG?

rjbesikof wrote:

New for 2023:
-IAD-BER/HND/2nd daily CDG
-EWR-DXB/AGP/HND/ARN (pre-COVID resumption)
-ORD-BCN/SNN
-SFO-FCO
-LAX-HND/2nd daily LHR
What I would like to see:
1) More TATL out of SFO (I know pre-COVID UA was going to launch SFO-DUB)
2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

My predictions are:
IAH-ZRH/MAD or LIS
DEN-more TATL.

On my flight today, as is often the case at the end of the month, they already put the next month's Hemispheres Magazine in the seats. I know that the magazine is not the gospel, but the map does still show CTU on the route map for January. It may not fly for a while, but I don't think it is cancelled yet.

AVENSAB727 wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

New for 2023:
-IAD-BER/HND/2nd daily CDG
-EWR-DXB/AGP/HND/ARN (pre-COVID resumption)
-ORD-BCN/SNN
-SFO-FCO
-LAX-HND/2nd daily LHR
What I would like to see:
1) More TATL out of SFO (I know pre-COVID UA was going to launch SFO-DUB)
2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

My predictions are:
IAH-ZRH/MAD or LIS
DEN-more TATL.

I would like to see more TATL from DEN but I think only AMS, CDG and FCO would have a shot. UA seems like they mainly want to use DEN for domestic traffic.

Everything I'm seeing sitting here in Asia is that China is going to open quite quickly. My guess is that by summer 2023, there will be significant increased demand for flights between China and the US. Should open the door for UA to resume many routes that were suspended during COVID.

I don't know why BRU gets left out of the IAH discussion. Houston already has a huge African population to fill the back of the plane with SN connections, but on top of that tons of oil traffic goes to SN's destinations. UA do very well at BRU with 77Ws to EWR and IAD as well as a 787-10 to ORD. IAH is probably as far as they can go for BRU (SFO doesn't have nearly the amount of African traffic or BRU O&D I don't think) but I think it would be a good performer. not to mention BRU is a decent enough EU connecting hub to go along with FRA/MUC. IAH-ZRH would be fine but BRU has a lot more in its favor I think

I can't see DEN getting much, maybe CDG. it just doesn't have the same international pull as the other hubs. I wouldn't be shocked to see IAD-DSS, I'm still surprised DL is at DSS but UA isn't, when they arguably have the bigger footprint in Africa (plus being partnered with SN)

I dont know why we go back and forth on additional European service from DEN and IAH on UA.

UA serves a grand total of one long haul destination from DEN that isnt related to a JV partner and that is LHR. DEN isnt a very international or diverse area, but it is a huge domestic O&D and connection powerhouse. But that doesn't appear to be enough to make UA want to do much more long haul with it. If DEN gets more long haul service from UA, AMS and CDG wont be a part of it. It will involve JV hubs like ZRH or BRU to maximize connections on both ends.

As for Houston, unlike Denver, its is a diverse and international area with a lot more international demand. But also unlike Denver, the location for connections isn't great. What would drive any addition service to Europe on UA from IAH would have to do with a pick up in ethnic or business demand. For that, BRU would be the most likely candidate.

That said, I think the last set of announcements has made it clear that UA would rather maximize connectivity from other hubs that have better geography and larger O&D. DEN has the location and connectivity but not the demand. IAH has the demand and connectivity, but not the location. EWR, IAD, and ORD have all three.

IAH-BRU is the only one I see in the near term due to the combination of business interests and ethnic travel. I agree with you entirely on DEN - it's as white as can be and anything "European" is generations back, and not in any significant number. you've shared those stats before on UA's hubs and diversity and it's mindblowing how homogenous Denver is. you can see it if you ever board a flight going there...I'm shocked they're able to maintain NRT service, but I trust it's a lot of connections to BKK and places like that where those folks want to vacation. that's why I mentioned "maybe" CDG, as its a big enough tourist destination in its own right (ditto FCO). I think you're sooner to see UA add more frequencies to the EWR/IAD Euro routes that seem to do really well (the second IAD-CDG kinda shuts down the idea of a DEN route, don't you say?)

Brussels works for a reason that no one has yet to state: it is the home of NATO

With LH and UA running FRA and MUC (and oneward connections) I think it's hard for UA to expand more in Europe, as much as I would like to see it. AMS would be a good start.

rjbesikof wrote:

New for 2023:
-IAD-BER/HND/2nd daily CDG
-EWR-DXB/AGP/HND/ARN (pre-COVID resumption)
-ORD-BCN/SNN
-SFO-FCO
-LAX-HND/2nd daily LHR
What I would like to see:
1) More TATL out of SFO (I know pre-COVID UA was going to launch SFO-DUB)
2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

UA will never darken the door of ADD. The need for connection westbound prevents that.

I agree; let's stop relitigating a DEN vs. IAH debate and pitting the two cities against one another. It looks like we're already starting to do so in the new thread. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both will always trail UA's other hubs for longhaul international service. UA management has signaled that it wants to increase its international footprint systemwide even further as the "flag carrier of the United States," and both cities seem positioned to benefit in the long run, even if neither is getting anything new to Europe this summer.

With that said, I doubt we'll see much UA expansion out of AMS in the near term. UA couldn't even run its entire schedule out of AMS last summer with all of its issues there. IAD-AMS was put on hold I believe on at least two separate occasions. Also, the Dutch government is even forcing Schiphol to reduce its slots starting in November 2023 as part of its well-intentioned but rather ill-conceived climate goals. So I doubt we'll see any growth there from UA.

I'd also be surprised if we saw much additional capacity to BRU. Its importance as a Star hub is often overstated on this site. LH has owned SN outright for several years now, and they seem to be very cautious of growing redundancy between BRU and FRA/MUC. I also doubt whether SN's Africa flights are a driving factor in US-Europe traffic. They're important, of course, but I doubt they seriously drive UA's own network planning.

As unsexy as it seems, I think it's a safe bet that UA will continue to try to secure more slots at LHR and add more frequencies to FRA and MUC. LHR has unlimited demand from everywhere, and FRA and MUC can move people more effectively than the other Star hubs in Europe. Aside from that, UA said that their reasoning for the 2023 route additions was that they wanted to add destinations where Star is traditionally weak. So maybe we'll see more Ireland, Spain, and Italy? More Scandinavia might not be a bad bet given SAS' rough shape too. We'll probably continue to see a mix of more LHR/FRA/MUC and a scattering of dartboard routes to premium leisure-skewing cities that may or may not return the following year.

intotheair wrote:

I agree; let's stop relitigating a DEN vs. IAH debate and pitting the two cities against one another. It looks like we're already starting to do so in the new thread.

I don't really see it that way.

What tends to happen is that some posters like to make predictions on future routes airlines may fly. The main issue is that these predictions are, more seldom than not, wish lists and not based on demand, resources, market, or route network strategies. Then other posters explain why specific routes aren't feasible. I don't think that is anti-hub, but just a response as to why.

As far as DEN and IAH are concerned, I think its fine to discuss the differences in those markets and the strengths and weaknesses they do have. Where European expansion is concerned, I standby the notion that I wouldn't look for UA to expand them. Of connectivity, demand, and location, DEN has the connectivity and the location but not the demand. IAH has the connectivity and demand but not the location. ORD, IAD, and EWR have all three and UA will focus on that instead for European expansion. DEN and IAH have lots of capacity to FRA and MUC and therefore lots of options to bypass the East Coast hubs. Both have LHR and IAH has AMS due to the large and high fare market. That may be what we have to settle for.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA will never darken the door of ADD. The need for connection westbound prevents that.

Until Googling just now I didn’t realize ADD is a full 2000’ higher altitude than DEN and JNB. Being 1000 mi shorter then JNB-EWR, I wonder if a PIP’d 789 could get off the ground with a meaningful payload?

rjbesikof wrote:

2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

I've often wondered if UA would ever start IAD-ADD with their own metal...it's a huge market and could probably support additional frequencies ex UA.

I'm not sure if the 787 with the PIP could make ADD-IAD nonstop, however.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I don't really see it that way.

What tends to happen is that some posters like to make predictions on future routes airlines may fly. The main issue is that these predictions are, more seldom than not, wish lists and not based on demand, resources, market, or route network strategies. Then other posters explain why specific routes aren't feasible. I don't think that is anti-hub, but just a response as to why.

As far as DEN and IAH are concerned, I think its fine to discuss the differences in those markets and the strengths and weaknesses they do have. Where European expansion is concerned, I standby the notion that I wouldn't look for UA to expand them. Of connectivity, demand, and location, DEN has the connectivity and the location but not the demand. IAH has the connectivity and demand but not the location. ORD, IAD, and EWR have all three and UA will focus on that instead for European expansion. DEN and IAH have lots of capacity to FRA and MUC and therefore lots of options to bypass the East Coast hubs. Both have LHR and IAH has AMS due to the large and high fare market. That may be what we have to settle for.

Fair enough: I think we probably agree on most of the main points. I agree that there's probably not a whole lot more that UA can do when it comes to longhaul out of DEN and IAH anytime soon. We know for sure that we won't see anything new in 2023, though the maintaining of all the service that's been added is at least a good sign. Given UA's bullish outlook on growth, I bet we do see more service added in the years to come, though there doesn't appear to be a clear answer as to what's missing and also likely to be a financial success.

USAirALB wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

I've often wondered if UA would ever start IAD-ADD with their own metal...it's a huge market and could probably support additional frequencies ex UA.

I'm not sure if the 787 with the PIP could make ADD-IAD nonstop, however.

I didn’t realize Ethiopian has the 787-9 in their fleet. I’m sure if a 789 could do ADD-USA nonstop they already would be.

USAirALB wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

I've often wondered if UA would ever start IAD-ADD with their own metal...it's a huge market and could probably support additional frequencies ex UA.

Too low yielding?

UA will switch to the 777-200ER for EWR-ZRH between 2/26/23 and 3/24/23, replacing the 767-300ER.

Question for you guys.

I'm curious to know what your preferences are regarding connections via other US hubs vs. connecting in Europe/Asia? If, for example, you having an itinerary IAD/ORD/IAH/DEN/SFO-VCE do you choose the connection in EWR or via FRA/MUC? Same with something like EWR/ORD/IAD/IAH/DEN-TPE? Do you choose the SFO connection or TYO connection? This is of course assuming cost is the same.

Me personally, I will always choose the connection in Europe in both directions mostly because I really don't like EWR. It's just too congested and the ATC delays can happen. If I have to, I'm ok with connecting in IAD but I still prefer FRA/MUC. The longer flights from IAH allow for more time to sleep as well. For Asia, I prefer SFO going and TYO coming back because the SFO connections usually allow an arrival around dinner and coming home I prefer to go through customs at my home airport. I usually don't sleep going to Asia and coming home, the longer flight from TYO allows for more sleep.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Question for you guys.

I'm curious to know what your preferences are regarding connections via other US hubs vs. connecting in Europe/Asia? If, for example, you having an itinerary IAD/ORD/IAH/DEN/SFO-VCE do you choose the connection in EWR or via FRA/MUC? Same with something like EWR/ORD/IAD/IAH/DEN-TPE? Do you choose the SFO connection or TYO connection? This is of course assuming cost is the same.

Me personally, I will always choose the connection in Europe in both directions mostly because I really don't like EWR. It's just too congested and the ATC delays can happen. If I have to, I'm ok with connecting in IAD but I still prefer FRA/MUC. The longer flights from IAH allow for more time to sleep as well. For Asia, I prefer SFO going and TYO coming back because the SFO connections usually allow an arrival around dinner and coming home I prefer to go through customs at my home airport. I usually don't sleep going to Asia and coming home, the longer flight from TYO allows for more sleep.

I prefer the connection prior to my longest flight, so if I'm flying to Europe, I would connect in EWR. I've had enough delayed redeyes that caused either missed connections, or unmanageably short connections involving customs and stress, on little sleep.

I agree with you on IAH, if I've upgraded. 6 hour east coast- Europe flights are too short to sleep, especially if you want to eat and maybe watch a movie.

Get the longest distance out of the way first. That way if you misconnect, you're only a couple hours away from where you need to go versus an entire day.

The only airport I've ever actively avoided connecting at is MiA and that's only because it's Customs facility used to be a nightmare back in my oneworld days. I have no problems about any of the UA or DL hubs for making a connection.

rjbesikof wrote:

New for 2023:
-IAD-BER/HND/2nd daily CDG
-EWR-DXB/AGP/HND/ARN (pre-COVID resumption)
-ORD-BCN/SNN
-SFO-FCO
-LAX-HND/2nd daily LHR
What I would like to see:
1) More TATL out of SFO (I know pre-COVID UA was going to launch SFO-DUB)
2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

2nd daily SFO-ICN is also coming back (albeit 5x weekly).

dcajet wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

2) More Africa (DSS, ADD)

I've often wondered if UA would ever start IAD-ADD with their own metal...it's a huge market and could probably support additional frequencies ex UA.

Too low yielding?

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

I will pick connecting in Europe over connecting in the US every time. Anything to avoid the bag collection and rescreening on I-D connections. If I do have to connect, I'd prefer to connect at IAD. Boring facilities, but the operation there is much better than EWR and ORD.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

I've often wondered if UA would ever start IAD-ADD with their own metal...it's a huge market and could probably support additional frequencies ex UA.

Too low yielding?

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Too low yielding?

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

It is the altitude of ADD combined with the distance that is the issue. Its 7,700 feet high.

What I am saying is that all ET flights make a connection in Europe Westbound. ET has 787s and 777s too. That is what UA would be facing if they launched ADD. The flights would have to stop in Europe before they could make it to the US. I suppose they could block off a large number of seats and be able to do it but they would never do it on an ethnic route.

UA does what it needs to remain relevant with ET. IAD-ADD is a very popular route for US government workers and contractors to use. Of course those workers have to remain Fly America compliant so UA throws its codeshare on it. That's all UA wants from it. That allows them to sell tickets on that flight that meet the requirements for government workers. A lot of the same workers fly on IAD-DOH with the AA codeshare.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Too low yielding?

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

There is certainly demand; ADD was the 4th busiest international destination from IAD in 2021 (granted, with lots of suppressed Covid traffic). It was a busier route than IAD to CDG, BRU, MUC…

The equipment issue is that no plane has the legs to take off from ADD (at 7,000 feet) and make it across the Atlantic. Which is why ET has the tech stops.

So, it’s not purely an equipment issue. But for United, if they’re making tech stops in Europe, they might as well just connect passengers there via their joint venture partners.

I think there are other African destinations UA is interested from IAD, but might be waiting for the XLR for those?

UA won't be serving ADD anytime soon. Politics will block it and UA can codeshare with ET on those flights anyways.

If UA were to add more African destinations, I'd expect CMN/DSS to be at the top of the list - DSS can be served with the XLR and I believe CMN can as well. CAI is also a possibility but politics could also be an issue with that one depending on circumstances.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

It is the altitude of ADD combined with the distance that is the issue. Its 7,700 feet high.

What I am saying is that all ET flights make a connection in Europe Westbound. ET has 787s and 777s too. That is what UA would be facing if they launched ADD. The flights would have to stop in Europe before they could make it to the US. I suppose they could block off a large number of seats and be able to do it but they would never do it on an ethnic route.

UA does what it needs to remain relevant with ET. IAD-ADD is a very popular route for US government workers and contractors to use. Of course those workers have to remain Fly America compliant so UA throws its codeshare on it. That's all UA wants from it. That allows them to sell tickets on that flight that meet the requirements for government workers. A lot of the same workers fly on IAD-DOH with the AA codeshare.

Would gov workers be required to fly Economy even for flights this long?
I would assume if UA could sell Polaris they could be more interested in adding this route? No??

United is cutting way back at IAD this month. There is basically only 3 banks. On Tuesday Jan 9th, there are only 4 mainline departures on the1000pm bank

Cmac787 wrote:

United is cutting way back at IAD this month. There is basically only 3 banks. On Tuesday Jan 9th, there are only 4 mainline departures on the1000pm bank

And those four mainline flights are LAX, LHR, CDG, and BOS, right? The crazy thing to me is that there's no DEN, ORD, SFO, IAH, let alone other major cities.

VC10er wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

It is the altitude of ADD combined with the distance that is the issue. Its 7,700 feet high.

What I am saying is that all ET flights make a connection in Europe Westbound. ET has 787s and 777s too. That is what UA would be facing if they launched ADD. The flights would have to stop in Europe before they could make it to the US. I suppose they could block off a large number of seats and be able to do it but they would never do it on an ethnic route.

UA does what it needs to remain relevant with ET. IAD-ADD is a very popular route for US government workers and contractors to use. Of course those workers have to remain Fly America compliant so UA throws its codeshare on it. That's all UA wants from it. That allows them to sell tickets on that flight that meet the requirements for government workers. A lot of the same workers fly on IAD-DOH with the AA codeshare.

Would gov workers be required to fly Economy even for flights this long?
I would assume if UA could sell Polaris they could be more interested in adding this route? No??

Most government workers fly economy. IAD-ADD is the literal only flight from ET that UA puts its code on. The fares on IAD-ADD on UA coded tickets are astronomical compared to just using the ET code. But this kills two birds with one stone for UA. They don’t have to launch their own service and they get crazy revenue from the codeshare.

It is for that reason alone UA puts a code on IAD-ADD but on no other ET flight. The prices they charge for that codeshare are so nuts that an Ethiopian family going home would never use it. It’s practically for government workers only.

But again, UA would never fly to ADD for operating reasons. It’s too high and far to fly to IAD on any aircraft. Even ET stops in DUB for all their flights to the US.

UA has not been shy about dynamically moving capacity around each month in the schedule.

Below is a look at how hubs stack up for January.

Airport / Departures / Seats
DEN / 12,397 / 1,626,234
EWR / 11,683 / 1,640,731
IAD / 5,647 / 707,939
IAH / 11,689 / 1,543,349
LAX / 2,926 / 516,250
ORD / 12,825 /1,538,254
SFO / 5,943 / 990,423

This month ORD has the most departures

EWR and IAH are pretty close to each other. 380-ish flights a day for IAH is very low. I’m shocked.

avi8 wrote:

EWR and IAH are pretty close to each other. 380-ish flights a day for IAH is very low. I’m shocked.

Why? What’s happening is that there’s fewer flights on bigger aircraft. It’s an increase in capacity just lower flight numbers. Almost every midwestern and Southern city has gone from regional to mainline.

I mean, IAH has more seats than ORD. How is that bad?

Here is what is planned for February.

Airport / Departures / Seats
DEN / 11,560 / 1,516,059
EWR / 11,019 / 1,532,940
IAD / 5,292 / 665,374
IAH / 11,151 / 1,443,250
LAX / 2,639 / 484,305
ORD / 12,283 / 1,459,792
SFO / 5,647 / 931,889

A slower month across the board.

LAX,LHR,FRA and BOS. 15 total flights including UAX. Right now IAD is about 100 flights below 2019. Most of those are UAX flights.

SumChristianus wrote:

Cmac787 wrote:

United is cutting way back at IAD this month. There is basically only 3 banks. On Tuesday Jan 9th, there are only 4 mainline departures on the1000pm bank

And those four mainline flights are LAX, LHR, CDG, and BOS, right? The crazy thing to me is that there's no DEN, ORD, SFO, IAH, let alone other major cities.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA couldnt fly ADD-IAD if they wanted to. Its too high and far to do it nonstop and they arent going to fly their own metal on a one stop through Europe.

UA could absolutely fly IAD-ADD if they wanted to, and have the planes to do it, from the 787s to the 777s. ET flies it, and are in Star Alliance, though not sure how far and wide UA and ET cooperate. UA not flying it is probably due to there not being enough demand and yield opportunity to justify it. It's not an equipment issue.

It is the altitude of ADD combined with the distance that is the issue. Its 7,700 feet high.

What I am saying is that all ET flights make a connection in Europe Westbound. ET has 787s and 777s too. That is what UA would be facing if they launched ADD. The flights would have to stop in Europe before they could make it to the US. I suppose they could block off a large number of seats and be able to do it but they would never do it on an ethnic route.

UA does what it needs to remain relevant with ET. IAD-ADD is a very popular route for US government workers and contractors to use. Of course those workers have to remain Fly America compliant so UA throws its codeshare on it. That's all UA wants from it. That allows them to sell tickets on that flight that meet the requirements for government workers. A lot of the same workers fly on IAD-DOH with the AA codeshare.

Gotcha. I was looking at it from the IAD-ADD sector, not the ADD-IAD one. UA has in the past served routes to the Persian Gulf region from IAD, almost solely for US government traffic (BAH, KWI...) and those were all dropped, along with DXB which at some point was served I think through one of them. That was in the 2000s and on 777s, but I would agree, I don't see UA flying its own metal, into ADD and back out through a third country. It would add cost and complexity for limited yield without government guarantees.

VC10er wrote:

Would gov workers be required to fly Economy even for flights this long?
I would assume if UA could sell Polaris they could be more interested in adding this route? No??

Government travel is almost always refundable economy.

Cmac787 wrote:

United is cutting way back at IAD this month. There is basically only 3 banks. On Tuesday Jan 9th, there are only 4 mainline departures on the1000pm bank

It's the slowest period of the year, and that's the slowest day of the week. Not particularly surprising. IAD is very underutilized, but the first week of January through early March is always going to be the most down period of the year. I would expect United to creep closer to 2019 numbers at IAD this summer, but it may still take another year or two to surpass. The annoying thing is that the EWR operation has been a dumpster fire for the past year (technically always, but the past year in particular), and a lot of those connections could and should be offloaded onto IAD. That was seemingly the plan for a while, but apparently they changed their minds.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Question for you guys.

I'm curious to know what your preferences are regarding connections via other US hubs vs. connecting in Europe/Asia? If, for example, you having an itinerary IAD/ORD/IAH/DEN/SFO-VCE do you choose the connection in EWR or via FRA/MUC? Same with something like EWR/ORD/IAD/IAH/DEN-TPE? Do you choose the SFO connection or TYO connection? This is of course assuming cost is the same.

Me personally, I will always choose the connection in Europe in both directions mostly because I really don't like EWR. It's just too congested and the ATC delays can happen. If I have to, I'm ok with connecting in IAD but I still prefer FRA/MUC. The longer flights from IAH allow for more time to sleep as well. For Asia, I prefer SFO going and TYO coming back because the SFO connections usually allow an arrival around dinner and coming home I prefer to go through customs at my home airport. I usually don't sleep going to Asia and coming home, the longer flight from TYO allows for more sleep.

First time actually posting here, be gentle...

Coming out of PDX to/from Europe I've decide ORD is as far east as I want to go before jumping off acoss, or landing coming back. PDX has no domestic widebody service to/from points east. It's 5 hours PDX-EWR outbound and over six hours EWR-PDX of Just. Shoot. Me. Now. after the TATL leg, even in 1st.

UA has yet officially announced their return to China service(exclude the current SFO-ICN-PVG), but seems like UA will resume all the China-US routes it served pre-pandemic eventually. These include PVG(2 daily SFO,1 daily LAX, 1 daily ORD, 1 daily EWR), PEK(1 daily SFO, 1 daily ORD,1 daily EWR,1 daily IAD) and CTU(3 weekly SFO).

intotheair wrote:

More Scandinavia might not be a bad bet given SAS' rough shape too. We'll probably continue to see a mix of more LHR/FRA/MUC and a scattering of dartboard routes to premium leisure-skewing cities that may or may not return the following year.

I'm really hoping for more Scandinavia. Helsinki would be an insane win I would say but it seems unlikely as of now. Copenhagen would be a huge win from EWR, same with Stockholm and Oslo. Would also like to see more seasonal flights to KEF.

In terms of other expansion, I'm hoping for a few new flights to Alaska and both Japan/Micronesia, but that's not happening.

LAXintl wrote:

Here is what is planned for February.

Airport / Departures / Seats
DEN / 11,560 / 1,516,059
EWR / 11,019 / 1,532,940
IAD / 5,292 / 665,374
IAH / 11,151 / 1,443,250
LAX / 2,639 / 484,305
ORD / 12,283 / 1,459,792
SFO / 5,647 / 931,889

A slower month across the board.

Uh no, Feb just has 3 fewer days in it than January. Try looking at the daily average.

Lamp1009 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

More Scandinavia might not be a bad bet given SAS' rough shape too. We'll probably continue to see a mix of more LHR/FRA/MUC and a scattering of dartboard routes to premium leisure-skewing cities that may or may not return the following year.

I'm really hoping for more Scandinavia. Helsinki would be an insane win I would say but it seems unlikely as of now. Copenhagen would be a huge win from EWR, same with Stockholm and Oslo. Would also like to see more seasonal flights to KEF.

In terms of other expansion, I'm hoping for a few new flights to Alaska and both Japan/Micronesia, but that's not happening.

Those destinations from EWR would be AWESOME! Connections through FRA, BRU or LHR are a pain.
I wonder if non av-geeks (general population) are aware that UA has the most European destinations from the NY metro area? UA’s ad blitz from a few years ago has stopped. Before 2020 UA’s advertising was everywhere. They owned so much outdoor ads in NYC and NJ.
Do we believe that it matters to people if an airline has by far the most nonstop destinations?

VC10er wrote:

Do we believe that it matters to people if an airline has by far the most nonstop destinations?

It matters to frequent travelers who want to earn and benefit from status. It doesn’t matter to infrequent travelers.

adamblang wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Do we believe that it matters to people if an airline has by far the most nonstop destinations?

It matters to frequent travelers who want to earn and benefit from status. It doesn’t matter to infrequent travelers.

I look at it this way: who is flying to where I need to go?

Living in Houston now, of course United is going to be the obvious choice. When I lived in LA, it was different. There was always a see-saw of who was providing the most service so I had to determine it based on who was flying the places I needed. Most of my time there was before airline merger mania so there were six airlines to choose from.

NW was never an option because I never was going to MSP or DTW.
US was never an option because they served so few destinations from LAX.
For a couple of years I was flying back and forth to Atlanta every three weeks, so I stuck with DL at that time.
That switched to UA because I moved to Chicago for a while and was going back and forth to LA a lot.
After I moved back to LA, I was traveling a lot to Houston so I switched to CO even though they didn't fly many places from LAX.
I ended up with AA because I was told I would be transferring to Dallas and was going back and forth a lot.

So I think it really just depends on where you live and where you travel. If I still lived in LA, Id still be with UA even though DL and AA fly more destinations because it would be a ton of back and forth to Houston.