Things Are About To Get Ugly

JungleClone

Senior
Jan 9, 2004
338
0
To no one's great surprise, the ATSB has issued it's official rejection of our bid for a loan guarantee. No more bites at the apple. Was anybody really expecting a different outcome? If this isn't enough to get Jake Brace and Doug Hacker fired, than I'm afraid that Glenn Tilton and the BOD are just plain blind.

In any event, things are about to get VERY ugly. How ugly? Much uglier than the cuts we've made so far because that was the low hanging fruit. Now it's time to reach for the big branches. In order to attract the kind of equity investment we need to get out of Chapter 11, deeper cuts are going to be necessary. There's just no avoiding it. Pensions will probably be among the first targets. I'm sure more pay cuts also will be in order, including furloughs. Route/network restructuring is probably a given. And we may see the end of the LAX hub. The sad part is that Glenn Tilton and crew have done virtually nothing to prepare us, the workforce, for what is about to hit. The fact of the matter is that we have not cut our costs nearly enough to compete. We cannot bring our costs into a competitive position with AA, DL, CO, NW, etc. We have to lower them into a competitive position relative to JetBlue, Southwest, Air Tran, Frontier and America West. Those are the carriers that continue to hurt us. And if we are to survive and prosper again, those are the carriers we will have to overcome.

Everyone had better strap themselves in because the roller coaster ride is about to start.
 
After AA, DL, CO, NW implement cuts to be competitive in whatever new enviroment results from UAL's moves, what's next?
 
LAX?


Why would LAX bed done as a hub? What going to go, Tarnscon to JFK, LHR, NRT, Australia? I can't see any of the LAX "cornerstones" being given up unless LAX is reduced just flights to ORD & DEN.
 
LAX competes w/ SFO, minus local traffic. I wouldn't be suprised to see LAX significantly reduced with lift moved to SFO. It's time for UAL to move all assets into SFO, DEN, and ORD. These are the core of UAL and must be defended. SEA, MIA, JFK, LAX, and maybe IAD could be on the blox.
 
Why LAX? Well, out of UA's five domestic hubs, LAX is the most vulnerable. It's much better off relying on strong O & D reliant transcons, as well as good connecting markets like Hawaii. The international flights from LAX are marginal at best. With SFO so close, it's much easier to back down from LAX and leverage SFO's international strength. I really don't see DEN going away because ORD is capacity constrained as we see on a near daily basis with flow control. So United has true growth potential in DEN, whereas serious growth at ORD is LONG, LONG time away. And IAD isn't going away because it is the European gateway. And we need the feed in/out of there to make those routes work. So my guess is that LAX could ultimately lose hub status and be drastically reduced. It's been analyzed for a long time. Don't be surprised to see it happen.
 
JungleClone said:
Why LAX? Well, out of UA's five domestic hubs, LAX is the most vulnerable. It's much better off relying on strong O & D reliant transcons, as well as good connecting markets like Hawaii. The international flights from LAX are marginal at best. With SFO so close, it's much easier to back down from LAX and leverage SFO's international strength. I really don't see DEN going away because ORD is capacity constrained as we see on a near daily basis with flow control. So United has true growth potential in DEN, whereas serious growth at ORD is LONG, LONG time away. And IAD isn't going away because it is the European gateway. And we need the feed in/out of there to make those routes work. So my guess is that LAX could ultimately lose hub status and be drastically reduced. It's been analyzed for a long time. Don't be surprised to see it happen.
Actually, I'd argue that IAD is under significantly more threat of closure than LAX:

1. With the exception of the LHR services, United could potentially make a successful go of the TATL operation ex-ORD - ORD would offer significantly more connecting traffic to offset the loss of IAD O&D. Heck, AA has accomplished this - why can't United?

2. UA is under direct attack at Dulles by I-Air. While we don't have any financial guidance yet from either UA or I-Air, United's offer of RTW tickets against a competitor that doesn't even fly to Canada (much less California) strongly suggests that UA is experiencing major problems retaining IAD traffic.
 
Ummmm, isn't it just a contest for RTW tickets? I don't think the sky is falling at IAD. Too much Intl traffic.
 
UA could make a bigger transatlantic operation out of ORD, keeping some key flights out of JFK and IAD, leaving the rest of the East Coast to US Airways. They would be free to focus on the core assets of ORD, SFO, and DEN, as well as thier large presence at LAX. Every major airline is all over the east and midwest, but UA is unique in its western presence. Despite the LHR rights, UA doesnt compare to its competitors in the European markets. United's strength is its Transpacific reach.

IAD is mostly an Express hub, formerly ACA which is now IAir. Dulles is goind to be a Mesa-Chautauqua-Shuttle America-Air Wisconsin-Republic-Trans States-SkyWest clusterf*ck giving UAL a bad name. If I were a UA employee I'd rather see the marginal hub operated mostly by embarrasing Express carriers go rather than LAX which has alot of actual United operations.
 
IAD has Brussels, Frankfurt, Munich, London, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Costa Rica, Amsterdam....off the top of my head, that's not chump change. Sure better than Peoria and White Plains.
 
IAD is the International airport to the Capital of the United States Of America.

UAL will only leave it in their last gasp of breath - should that occur.