As part of an expansion of its International portfolio to Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, United announced that it will begin scheduled service to Montego Bay, Jamaica, as well as Cozumel, Cancun, San Jose del Cabo, Puerto Vallarta and Ixtapa in Mexico; Punta Cana, Dominican Republic; St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles; and additional service to Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; and San Jose, Costa Rica. Service is scheduled to begin in December. Flight times, frequencies and additional information will be made available upon receipt of approval from government operating authorities.
New Routes
- Thread starter Fly
- Start date
Now why in the HE!! would UAL want to fly to all those places that our code share partner will be serving for some time to come....... 
. St Maarten, here I come!! 
. St Maarten, here I come!! Depends if that code share partner is going to become a part of the "new" United....along with pilots, f/a's and mechanics 
Mexico here we come! Buh bye Mexicana, hello UA! Oh look! US Airways will be there too! wow! what a shocking coincidence!
going with that train of thought... does a certain Crystal City Airline run their Airbus fleet on the same engines as we (UA)? I've asked about 5 Airbus FO's at UA and apparently none of them follow the industry and have no idea. I was really surprised!
FA4UA
going with that train of thought... does a certain Crystal City Airline run their Airbus fleet on the same engines as we (UA)? I've asked about 5 Airbus FO's at UA and apparently none of them follow the industry and have no idea. I was really surprised!
FA4UA
I don't fly the airbus but I do know the UA and US engines are non-compatible. We use the IAE V2500 and they use a CFM (crummy french motor)
FRNT, NWA and U use CFM's
UAL, Jblu and I think AWA use IAE's.
From my understanding, the engines are "plug and play" devices for the A320 Airframe. Bolt em on and load the software...
UAL, Jblu and I think AWA use IAE's.
From my understanding, the engines are "plug and play" devices for the A320 Airframe. Bolt em on and load the software...
I don't understand why UA is starting service on "vacation" (e.g. low-yield) routes. If I were them (and obviously I'm not, which is why they might know better), I would be investing my metal in beefing-up frequency on higher-yielding "business" routes.
- Thread Starter
- #8
Perhaps they have chosen to not do that because the bottom fell out of the business traveler market. I'm glad to see them maintain the routes they have and reach out to the new destinations.
Business travellers are now paying "leisure" fares. Gone are the days of $1,000 tickets between IAD and ORD. These leisure destinations are always in demand regardless of how the "business secter" is doing. I'm glad UAL is looking for new leisure markets. For people who say UAL isn't doing anything to change their business plan this is a big change for UAL
I'd love to visit some of these new destinations myself but figure sa-ing to any of them will be pretty tough----sigh.
I'd love to visit some of these new destinations myself but figure sa-ing to any of them will be pretty tough----sigh.
I think that the International routes are where the legacy carriers can still be very profitable. The are almost no LCCs on the International routes to bring down the fares. I don't blame UA for trying to get some more of the pie. Just my thoughts........
IMHO there are three major reasons why UA is going for the leisure destinations all of the sudden.
1) Leisure Travellers are the fastest growing segment of the customer mix in commercial aviation. With the Baby Boomers retiring and taking more vacation, they are flying and spending their money to get to leisure destinations. UA needs to be there to serve them. With our projected CASM after exiting Ch-11 being around 8.5-9 cents a mile we can now better serve these low yeilding markets and make a bit of cash there. With our previous CASM of over a dime a mile, these markets could never effectively been served.
2) By starting service (even if it's just once a week) it prevents or blocks at least one other carrier from starting service on those same city pairs. There are regulations saying that only two US carriers can fly on the same city (United States/Mexico) pairing. By UA getting our toe in the door it makes it so that only one other carrier can fly it from the US.
3) Over and over surveys to our frequent fliers conclude that they want one carrier that can take them anywhere they want to go. Surveys and research have proven time and again that our FF's like flying only one carrier. We are trying to be the "one stop shop" for all our FF's needs.
So in other words, these announcements of new leisure markets are right in line with the economy at large and within the scope of UA's business plan.
FA4UA
1) Leisure Travellers are the fastest growing segment of the customer mix in commercial aviation. With the Baby Boomers retiring and taking more vacation, they are flying and spending their money to get to leisure destinations. UA needs to be there to serve them. With our projected CASM after exiting Ch-11 being around 8.5-9 cents a mile we can now better serve these low yeilding markets and make a bit of cash there. With our previous CASM of over a dime a mile, these markets could never effectively been served.
2) By starting service (even if it's just once a week) it prevents or blocks at least one other carrier from starting service on those same city pairs. There are regulations saying that only two US carriers can fly on the same city (United States/Mexico) pairing. By UA getting our toe in the door it makes it so that only one other carrier can fly it from the US.
3) Over and over surveys to our frequent fliers conclude that they want one carrier that can take them anywhere they want to go. Surveys and research have proven time and again that our FF's like flying only one carrier. We are trying to be the "one stop shop" for all our FF's needs.
So in other words, these announcements of new leisure markets are right in line with the economy at large and within the scope of UA's business plan.
FA4UA
coolflyingfool,coolflyingfool said:
You hit the nail on the head here. If the legacies ever finally figure out that they can be successful in exploiting what they do well (International and FC service) and quit trying to become LCCs, they will be on their way to recovery. The key is that they need to serve destinations that the LCCs can't touch with their 737s and Airbus jets. Mexico is not he answer.
"The key is that they need to serve destinations that the LCCs can't touch with their 737s and Airbus jets. Mexico is not he answer."
The ironic thing is that the only "spare" lift UAL has IS lowly NB's. After getting rid of WB's in BK, UAL is actually short of WB's
The ironic thing is that the only "spare" lift UAL has IS lowly NB's. After getting rid of WB's in BK, UAL is actually short of WB's
Busdrvr,Busdrvr said:
What's up with all the 747-400s parked on the ramp at SFO? Maybe they should have rejected more NBs and fewer WBs. In any case, the 757-200 and/or 767-200 would be adequate to out distance the LCC fleets.
C54,C54Capt said:
the problem is that Legacy carriers fly airplanes the same way LCC's do, from airport to airport. There is no divine right to gaining market share because a particular airline is a media darling. Cool animals on the tail and cute commercials are not going to save FRNT from reaping what they have been asking for in DEN for the last several years by kicking UAL while we were down.
AWA and a bunch of others are in TED's sights, UAL is well on the way to becoming an airline that serves international, hub to hub, and transcon traffic efficiently and with very high customer service, while taking a big bite out of those who have taken our market share over the last couple years.
FLY TED!!!
Similar threads
