It was just a couple days ago when I talked about how Delta was strengthening its southern European operation next summer, including the addition of only one new city (Catania). American was similarly conservative in bulking up between hubs and strengthening Philly. Then there’s United. Its plan — which was just released this morning — is wildly different.
There are two main themes here. The first is taking advantage of the power of the Newark hub by going into places that nobody would have ever considered until recently. The second is showing what’s old is new again with the return of the Narita hub. Let’s take these in that order.
Newark Gets Unique Destinations
United July 2025 Atlantic network (excluding India) via Cirium
In addition to boosting frequencies in the Newark – Athens, Dubrovnik, and Palma de Mallorca markets, Newark is getting five new summer seasonal routes to some pretty hard-to-get places.
- Bilbao (Spain) 3x weekly from May 31 on a 757-200
- Faro (Portugal) 4x weekly from May 16 on a 757-200
- Madeira (Portugal) 3x weekly from June 7 on a 737-8 MAX
- Nuuk (Greenland) 2x weekly from June 14 on a 737-8 MAX
- Palermo (Italy) 3x weekly from May 21 on a 767-400ER
What’s so interesting about this list — beyond the sheer number of new destinations — is just how hard it can be to get to these places.
Bilbao has regular service from all the usual European hubs, but the connectivity isn’t as good as you’d hope for Americans. For example, the flight to Dublin is in the evening, so it requires an overnight to get back to the US. Oddly, even TAP’s flights to Lisbon are all in the afternoon. And it’s something of a backtrack to go through most other European hubs. Frankfurt and Munich, for example, are more than 1,000 miles out of the way. Madrid is really the best option, but that’s going to work for American and its partner Iberia, not United.
Faro seems on the surface that it would have better connectivity since it has Heathrow flights on BA, but those are also in the afternoon. This is about serving European traffic, so if Americans want to go, there are just few well-timed options.
Madeira is even more difficult. Even the shortest routing via Lisbon on TAP is more than 25 percent further than going nonstop. And most people aren’t going to connect on TAP anyway. On a side note, lucky United pilots get to see their flying skills put to the test. The winds are tricky there, and if you just search YouTube you’ll find plenty of examples of, shall, we say, challenging landings.
Palermo, ok, that’s not as difficult but it’s been on United’s list for awhile. In fact, it was announced for summer 2020, but COVID ruined that plan. Today only Neos flies to the US with an infrequent JFK flight. But Neos is a leisure carrier that doesn’t have a true premium cabin, just a premium economy option. With Delta going into Catania, the island of Sicily will now be well-covered.
Lastly, there’s Nuuk. That is nearly impossible to visit from the US. The best way to get there now is on Icelandair via Keflavik which nearly doubles the amount of miles you have to cover. You could try to find your way to Iqaluit in Northern Canada and then hop over, but that’s not a serious option. Nuuk has recently extended its runway and a new terminal opens in late November, so next summer is the first time this has even been technically possible. Since it’s on a 737 only 2x a week, there isn’t much risk for United. But that brings us to a broader point.
While American and Delta strengthen connectivity to their partner hubs and try to connect more dots that way, United is all about trying to expand the map. It wants to be called the US’s flag carrier, and it is certainly making a strong case for that. Newark makes this possible thanks to the local and connecting traffic base there. But in some markets, the nonstop opportunity just isn’t big enough, and that’s where Tokyo comes back in.
The Re-Hubbling of Tokyo
United July 2025 Pacific network (excluding India) via Cirium
Narita Airport in Tokyo was all but given up for dead. When more slots became available at close-in Haneda, Delta pulled out of Narita entirely, shutting the hub it inherited from Northwest. United had a bigger footprint and couldn’t pull everything from Narita, but the assumption was it would eventually go away. That hasn’t happened.
United continues to serve Narita with flights from Denver, Houston/IAH, Los Angeles, Newark, and San Francisco. It also connects with United’s Guam-based operation with flights there and to Saipan.
This year, we got a glimpse into what United was thinking could be possible. It began operations to Cebu in the Philippines as a winter market, connecting a city to Narita that wasn’t flown by joint venture partner ANA. I’ll have more to say about this in a future post, but suffice it to say, United still likes this plan.
It is now going to launch three routes from Narita using 737-800s:
- Kaohsiung (Taiwan) 1x daily year-round from July 11
- Palau year-round
- Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia) 3x weekly seasonal from May 1
None of these routes are served today by ANA, so this creates connectivity both from the US and within Asia. Palau is an obvious option. Delta flew that until 2018 when it shut the Narita hub, but now United can take over.
But Ulaanbaatar is the one that I find most fascinating. This is a market that has increasingly become a bucket list trip, and most often that has meant going via Beijing. There are a couple options through Seoul, but with Beijing service falling off and general geopolitical concerns there, a new option becomes much more interesting. I would think that United will be able to take a big piece of this market. It’s not enormous, but it could very well be enough to fill an occasional 737.
It’s really United’s Guam base that make this all so interesting. With that base it inherited from Continental, it has a jumping off point for using 737s throughout Asia on shorter hauls. It’s a structural advantage others don’t have, and it’s one United appears to be trying to exploit.
The Other Odds and Ends
Those were the two big highlight trends, but there is more happening.
- Washington/Dulles will get new 3x weekly year-round service to Dakar plus seasonal flights to Nice and Venice.
- Houston/IAH will see flights to Puerto Escondido in Mexico.
- San Francisco will have flights to San José in Costa Rica.
On top of all this, United says none of the airline’s international routes are being cut for next summer. It is shifting Tenerife from a summer to a winter seasonal market, but that’s it.
Considering this new batch of routes, I’d be shocked if they all work. But that’s the point. Try a bunch, and if you get a decent number that do work, you’ve won. If they all work, you probably didn’t dig deep enough.
Now here’s the scariest thought. None of these routes rely on the longer range A321XLR. That airplane is supposed to be delivered to United in January 2026, so if we think the summer 2025 plan is wild, I imagine 2026 is going to be something else.
87 comments on “United’s Wild Summer Schedule Shows How Different This Airline Is”
Definitely the coolest route announcement in quite some time and proof that the Narita hub flying is not dead.
Zipair (JAL subsidiary) announced NRT-IAH-NRT today too.
In general, I hope there’s more secondary flying to/from Tokyo Narita.
If ANA/JAL even hope to keep some semi-decent schedule from here, which they need to as they will always lack HND slots, they need feed in all directions.
Need to bring back NRT-BKK on a widebody!
Flying SIN-BKK in December and after flying US Domestic routes and to Canada on tin cans with engines I was amazed at ALL the widebody options. Scoot on a 787, 777 on Thai, SQ had a 787. The list goes on. Widebody FTW.
Slots and bilateral agreements also drive this. Operators in Asia must upgauge because they can’t get more frequencies due to slot controls and bilateral constraints
This is so timely as the YouTube channel “The B1M” just released a video on the airport in Osaka & how it has been sinking.
With all the new European flights, surprised PRG is still not served.
Interesting omission. Must be either low yield or sufficient connectivity via JV hubs?
As a frequent PRG traveler (14 times last year), this infuriates me to no end. It’s such a popular tourist destination, I’m shocked they haven’t even tried it on a seasonal basis.
Chris – My guess is that Prague is such an easy connection over Frankfurt or Munich that it’s not as high on the list. United seems to be focusing on places where connections are hard or out of the way.
Secondary Spain raids a lot of traffic from Oneworld, and to an extent Skyteam.
It’s not only profitable, but also has a strategic use. Smart play by United Airlines.
Same question. Another big secondary capital is Budapest.
Me too. Furthermore, we fly to Budapest next week. When I looked it up, there are no trans-At flights into BUD. None. The runway is 12,000ft so that’s not a problem. Interesting opportunty for somebody?
UA flew EWR-PRG pre-pandemic, and brought it back for one season post-COVID, but it doesn’t seem to work well. The riverboat cruise industry has shifted away from the Danube and East Europe due to droughts, and more of that is in Portugal and elsewhere now.
Seems a lot of European leasure destinations. Not sure how UA is going to get a lot of premium revenue from leasure paxs. Maybe they are counting on wealthier individuals to pay for upgrades verse counting on business travelers.
United is banking on “premium leisure” business. They are also devaluing corporate business. They are following AA’s playbook without the scorched earth piece of it. AA reversing course probably hurts UA more than anyone as they were quietly following them down the same path. I believe UA will suffer from this strategy just like AA did. Banking on premium leisure traffic is a big gamble along with turning your back on corporate business. Risky strategy and will be curious how shareholders will like this after what happened with AA.
How is United devaluing corporate business? Specifically along the lines of what AA was doing. I don’t see any commonality whatsoever.
UA is cutting all corporate discounts, just not as severely as AA did. Many customers are taking 25-50% cuts on their agreements, just after they moved share over to UA from AA. UA is blaming it on their higher costs (labor, fuel, etc) and lower volumes from corporate customers. They simply don’t believe corporate business is as valuable as it used to be.
On the contrary. Perhaps they think they are leaving money on the table with big discounts like those that you described.
And let’s not forget that UA still has a large staff of professional sales reps and an experienced desk full of knowledgeable agents to respond to requests for favors and waivers. Recall that American fired theirs and that these people are not easy to find.
The discounts are not 25%-50%, that is what the discounts are getting reduced by. Just want to be clear. You are correct in that they have left their sales and inside support. That is why I said they just did not do it as drastic as AA. It is still a tough pill to swallow when the airline a corporate customer supports and pushed share to now rewards you with lower discounts.
A discount is still a reward. Perhaps United’s were overly generous relative to the industry or the current environment. Things change. Nobody is ever promised a discount for life.
UA is very smart to keep their sales rep staff for sure. Fun fact, actor Tom Selleck started out as a sales rep for UA back in the day.
Spot on. These routes are splashy but assume a strong USD and a steady demand from US point of sale. If the economy wobbles or contracts, forget it.
Brian – Premium leisure is huge right now, and for summer seasonal travel there is big money to be made.
Good for UA! This is what Network Planning should look like.
The last thing we need is another boring hub-to-partner-hub announcement.
I guess United is no longer concerned with the ATC shortage issues that has hampered Newark travel in recent years…
I don’t think a more jaw dropping is even possible for UA.
Congrats to the progressive and innovative company culture at United for allowing these crazy proposals to go ahead.
Progressive and innovative is exactly what a Network Planning department should be. Seems like a lost art anymore.
and yet Delta’s boring single new year round SLC-ICN flight will add more capacity than all of the narrowbody seasonal flights that UA just added.
and DL just said that the Pacific was its fastest growing region in terms of revenue.
Let’s see what UA’s earnings release shows but, unless they announce something else, UA is not starting any new TPAC daily widebody routes for 2025 while DL has already announced SLC-ICN and there very likely will be more route announcements coming.
Maybe it is just the shortage of new aircraft at UA but it could well be that there just aren’t that many new longhaul daily widebody routes that UA can add.
UA has more than double the capacity across the Pacific that DL has
Meh. SLC-ICN added nothing that I couldn’t have had before via other west coast gateways. Nice for a few SLC flyers, sure.
The UA route announcement has me looking at my calendar for next year and trying to figure out when I can go the Madeira, Greenland and Mongolia.
How many wide body frames and routes does UA have vs. DL?
“Meh” is right. What an underwhelming add. As a shareholder, I’d like to see a little more moxie from DL.
avgeeks might want to see lots of dots and lines on route maps but I can absolutely assure you that the institutional investors that own 80+% of DAL are most interested in what results in the highest returns on their investments.
Since Delta earned 1.8X more profits than United in 2023 and American didn’t even make money flying the Pacific and Delta says that its flights to joint venture hubs earn 2X more than its flights to non-JV hubs, the chances are that DL will generate far more additional profit on SLC-ICN than UA will earn on all of its new flights – which shouldn’t be hard to do since DL’s SLC-ICN flight adds more capacity than all of UA’s route additions.
All of DL’s summer 2025 TATL route additions so far are seasonal but on widebodies; AA had several seasonal and two new year round routes while DL has added one new year round daily TPAC route and neither AA or UA have added any new TPAC routes.
UA added a bunch of dots with narrowbodies and less than daily service, most of which is seasonal.
There hasn’t so far been much additional new service added by the big 3. DL still hasn’t announced all of its TPAC flights and there are rumors that there will be more TATL flights perhaps as soon as tomorrow.
All the talk about how big United is doesn’t matter if the competition is growing at a much faster annual rate.
To be fair: United has more trans-Pacific service than Delta already. With the recent route announcements at Delta, they’re finally trying to catch up to what United has had for a while.
I’m a bit surprised we didn’t end up getting a SFO-BKK though. It seems like AC’s done pretty well with their YVR-BKK service, and it probably could be a good winter route when United needs to find places to send their widebodies…
Remember, this was a summer announcement. When the announcement for next winter comes, I wouldn’t be surprised to see BKK at all. That’s a good winter route for Air Canada.
You’re not wrong about the poor US connectivity with 2nd-3rd tier European markets. I randomly have to go to a couple next summer (Seville Marseille) and was shocked by how hard they are to get to. Barely any options (and no affordable ones) without an overnight connection somewhere. Too bad those specific cities aren’t on the list (although Faro isn’t a terrible alternate for SVQ), but glad to see UA’s head is in the right place recognizing the issue here.
Now if only they had a half decent economy product you’d actually want to fly to these places…
We went to Seville last year for Thanksgiving. When we were trip planning, but before we bouht flights, there was a CDG -SVQ flight.
That was canceled so we ended up flying SFO-CDG-BCN on Air France, and then BCN-SVQ on Vueling. It was a gamble with self-connecting in BCN, but it was the only option. It was about 20 hours of travel IIRC.
I just traveled to Marseille recently, and ended up flying to CDG and then taking the TGV direct from Terminal 2 to Marseille (single seat train ride, no connection). It wasn’t bad, and when you factor an airline connection, and 30 minute bus/train ride from the airport in Marignane (MRS) into central Marseille (where the TGV line terminates), probably not an appreciably longer trip then if you are connecting through a European hub to get to MRS. [Though I would have happily taken a US non-stop to MRS if it was available]
Surprised/excited with NRT coming back. Now that HND is full, NRT to mid-size Asian cities that partners don’t serve will be the best fit for the next few years if not decades. I can see PUS be the next and if anyone worries about lengthy ground time at PUS, UA can add PUS-GUM overnight similar time with LCCs running the route.
UA wouldn’t chase NRT to bigger cities like BKK or SGN which would be better served by partners. Rather UA would want them be directly connected from SFO, in several years down the road.
Yeah, after the (unsuccessful) Australia/NZ experiments in the winter you’d think UA would be looking for another warm weather spot for widebodies. Suppose there are two issues: overflying the JV partner in Japan, and it’s a long way. SFO-BKK is 7900 miles, much longer than HKG or MNL (6900 miles) and SYD (7400 miles), close to EWR-HKG at 8100 miles, shorter than SFO-SIN and IAH-SYD (8400-8600 miles).
I’ve always thought that US airlines’ concerns about secondary airports–especially NRT and LGW–was extreme. I’m sure if I lived in London or Tokyo I’d think that using the close-in airport was very important. But most of US airlines’ traffic originates in the US. And if you travel to Tokyo rarely or with moderate frequency, taking the Narita or Gatwick Express just isn’t that big a deal.
Entirely agree.
If only Cranky had a map to hand which illustrates the journey from Narita into downtown Tokyo.
Exactly. Disappointed that Godzilla didn’t make his appearance in this post, but I guess the route map visuals were more important, and I know that Cranky tries not to put TOO many images in each post.
The people demand to know how this affects Godzilla!
Godzilla risks notwithstanding NRT to most of Tokyo is far from a hassle and it’s only with the opening of the lizzard line that LHR is easier for most of London than LGW
Cranky,
We need our Godzilla fix. Please
first, UA will not fly all of the routes it previously has flown in part because of Middle East tensions and because of continued China weakness and Russia airspace restrictions.
UA is able to have a more extensive international network than AA or DL because UA will fly narrowbody aircraft over the Atlantic on flights over 8 hours, something AA and DL do not do.
UA has an advantage with the GUM pilot base which allows them to fly points beyond NRT that were not economically viable when DL operated a NRT hub using US based narrowbody pilots.
Mongolia is cool and, if UA has 5th freedom rights, adds to the power of service from Tokyo helps close some of the gaps that KE and OZ serve from ICN.
typically gutsy UA…. the last piece of new service for the big 3 is DL’s TPAC announcements.
Incredible, a TD comment I didn’t regret reading.
Do I detect some excitement for aviation generally, and not the usual “WELL ACKSHUALLY, Delta is better/perfect because….” BRAVO, Tim!!!
Obviously hemorrhaging money and being a rudderless ship (AA for a while now) isn’t ideal, but there’s more to life than every last penny of profit and farming your flying out to JV partners… As a pilot and travel enthusiast, these routes are exciting, maybe not to a bean counter in the secret Biscoff tunnel in ATL.
Great take, Cranky! “If they all work, you probably didn’t dig deep enough.” I’m excited for this type of route expansion, even as a try-and-see.
That was short lived as he claims in another comment above that the single DL SLC-ICN “will add more capacity than all of the narrowbody seasonal flights that UA just added,” without any substantiation as always.
Then the typical red herring that “UA is not starting any new TPAC daily widebody routes for 2025 while DL has already announced SLC-ICN.” Besides being completely irrelevant it’s also misleading since United already eats everybody’s lunch TPAC. Yeah, I’m sure Utah to Korea will even that out. Insert eyeroll emoji here.
Both sides of the coin are correct. If a competitor that has half the capacity of their larger competitor is growing at a faster rate into 2025 and beyond, the size gap will close.
I would dare say DL’s SLC is larger than anybody at NRT. Nothing personal
The question is simply if we will hear more long haul TPAC route additions for 2025 for US carriers
Tim, If Airline A has 10 flights and goes up to 15, while Airline B has 2 flights and grows to 4, which airline grows at a higher percentage? Which airline actually has more growth?
You’re confusing percentage of growth with absolute growth.
UA has more flatbed premium seats than AA and DL combined. UA will also have new A321XLRs with a very premium product up front, along with the range and capacity that will allow these secondary markets to continue to work.
The narrowbodies will offer a good product (sold as premium economy) that will still offer better yields than domestic flights of similar length due to the convenience and time savings.
UA focuses on one stop options around the world, while DL passengers are much more likely to have to double in a DL and then a partner hub.
Also, reliable sources have a new UA widebody TPAC route coming up, that was never expected to be part of today’s announcement.
The UA growth will continue, especially as the 150 787 deliveries ramp up next year.
Your statement that “You’re confusing percentage of growth with absolute growth.” couldn’t be more accurate. The same commenter actually said this in another post:
“All the talk about how big United is doesn’t matter if the competition is growing at a much faster annual rate.”
Ummm, what? Okaaaaaaay! I guess your simple example didn’t help! Lol
Mark and Bill,
the point, once again, is that UA didn’t grow its summer 2025 schedule SO FAR by a single daily widebody route.
I understand very well what UA has on order – as I do for AA and DL.
UA’s current route announcement does not add a single daily nonstop flight or its equivalent in widebody capacity.
AA and DL, by their announcements so far are growing their widebody international networks. IN addition to its summer Europe schedule which Brent covered, DL has just added MSP-CPH and LAX-PVG, both less than daily while AA says 2 of its new routes are widebody daily routes.
All of the orders in the world don’t matter if Boeing doesn’t deliver. UA is well into delivery delays for both the 737 and 787 families from Boeing.
and, like DL, UA might be starting to retire some widebody aircraft.
DL is growing its widebody operations across the Atlantic and Pacific. AA is adding new daily widebody flights across the Atlantic and upgauging across the Pacific.
UA’s schedule additions are largely narrowbody, seasonal, and less than daily.
Is sub daily international flying an old trend for international carriers or is that the real new way to schedule ?
I love the sub daily idea to places with lesser demand. As far as I can tell, the only challenge relates to booking. If people select dates without the service, they won’t be aware a nonstop option exists. And these are destinations where the traveler will most likely have flexibility in their dates of travel. Perhaps CF can weigh in on whether and to what extent that is an issue?
Bill – Definitely an issue that for a place like Nuuk you just can’t get there on any other day. So they need some sort of calendar search to help travelers.
I was thinking of the opposite example, flying to places that can be connected to on other days. If someone plugs in the “wrong” days, they won’t be aware that a nonstop exists in that market on other days. I can’t be the only one who would change my dates and, more importantly, pay more for the nonstop IF I knew that was an option.
Bill – Fair enough. I think it’s just a matter of how people search.
United will have to do work to figure that part out. But chances are at least one direction will show up as nonstop and then people will get curious if the other doesn’t.
If you search for a flight on days United doesn’t operate, United.com will offer you a 7-day view of other options. See MNL-ROR for example.
Chris – I think the idea here is that when you’re focused on premium leisure, it’s about the number of seats in the market and not about frequency. So, they know the airplanes they have to fly the routes, and they can adjust frequency to match. On long-haul like this, the days of week don’t matter all that much. People will adjust trips to get the easy flights.
Damn. Could’ve done with the IAD-VCE service starting a little sooner. Sadly, am stuck having to fly on BA after connecting in LHR.
On it’s own, repopulating the NRT hub makes sense. However, there’s another factor that makes it attractive: the closure of Russian airspace. Remember the reasons given for de-hubbing/de-emphasizing a Tokyo hub? Why do that when today’s airliners can fly nonstop. Well, that required the overflight of Russian airspace to make feasible. Since that cannot happen now, and won’t be happening again soon, the rebirth of an NRT hub makes a lot of sense if you want to build a strong USA-Asia route network.
I applaud UA for the moves they’re making.
Having a Japanese JV partner is also a boon to UA continuing to operate at Narita. Delta lacked a JV partner there so it probably made sense to shift to local demand at Haneda and focus Asian connectivity to Seoul with Korean, the only gap in my mind is if there’s extra rights inherited from the post war era that UA and DL get in terms of operating a hub in a foreign country at Narita that can’t be replicated at other airports like Seoul, but that starts to intersect with air freedoms and treaties so way out of my depth
the US has 5th freedom rights from ICN that could be used but KE and/or OZ operate many of the same flights that UA is adding from NRT. ICN is and will be a larger hub to the rest of Asia than NRT or HND.
UA is just using the dropoff in the US-NRT market to add flights beyond NRT and do so more economically than DL could when DL operated a NRT hub. The dropoff in local Tokyo traffic at NRT is still there and the Tokyo to US market is not growing while new flights to the US continue to be added to ICN and other E. Asia gateways.
UA announced a bunch of new destinations operated predominantly on narrowbodies on a seasonal basis but not one of the new routes involves a daily year-round widebody flight.
Timbits, I’ve flown UA from a Delta hub twice in the space of a week. These routes excite me, and I couldn’t give two hairs off my butt for Salt Lake to Seoul. UA could do PDX-NRT. You know, the route DL wasn’t granted and tried to price at an unconsionable fortune. So pound it and go hump your Bastian waifu pillow.
Agree that with a re-hubbing of Narita, UA from PDX would fit nicely, especially with onward connections. Nike, Intel, and others are still in Portland and and Japanese tourist traffic to PDX is of longstanding. Certainly would surprise DL.
The narrowbodies are in addition to the absolutely staggering amount of widebodies UA has in its fleet. UA has no shortage of those, and a new route to BKK or SGN is expected in the future.
Meanwhile, DL added a flight from Utah to Korea, another flight to ICN that will require backtracking for anyone whose destination is in the huge Japanese market.
If you have any doubts on how massive the Japanese market is, pull up the flight schedules from HND to CTS. Almost 60 flights a day, most in domestically configured widebodies. Those 777s, 787s, A350s, and 767s are all in addition to the traffic from NRT to CTS, and also in addition to all of the widebodies that cover other parts of the Japanese market, a market UA has incredible access to, thanks to NH, and a market DL flies over on its way to ICN.
Mark,
No one has doubted the size of UA’s widebody fleet but the point you still don’t seem to want to admit is that UA grew its widebody route network with this route announcement with precisely ZERO new daily widebody routes.
It doesn’t matter how big anyone is at anything but if your competitors are growing and you are not, your size advantage will shrink.
I have been saying for months that DL’s ability to get more new widebodies from Airbus would affect network growth and that is what we are seeing.
Neither DL or UA are likely through with their 2025 routes but, so far, DL has grown its widebody network across both the Atlantic and Pacific more than UA.
HND is a large domestic Japanese airport and UA has zero financial participation in it other than what it brings from the US. UA’s access to the Japan domestic market is limited by the amount of capacity it flies across the Pacific into Tokyo and the US-Tokyo market is not growing – it is a mature market with no growth access.
UA has added a few narrowbody spokes beyond NRT in order to try to replace some of the US-Tokyo traffic that has shifted to HND and the connecting traffic from the US to deeper into Asia that UA carries on its own nonstops.
In contrast, the US to ICN AND BEYOND market is growing w/ new capacity.
and ALL US-Tokyo flights require backtracking to get back to CTS. The fact that there is a robust S. Korea to secondary Japan market that CAN connect via ICN to the US doesn’t mean that is the primary focus of the US to ICN network but in many cases a US-ICN-secondary Japan itinerary is as fast as flying to HND and then taking the train.
and DL has added non-ICN, non-Japan flights post covid and will add more. Their execs just said what I have been saying for months. The 35Ks will be used to cost effectively grow DL’s network deeper into Asia. UA’s choice will be to use costly 77Ws or use efficient 787s that are 25% smaller than DL’s 35Ks and still might not have the range.
Keep picking those cherries… United doesn’t have to grow its TPAC widebody network since it’s already the largest by far so they’re growing other parts of their network which you want to ignore because they aren’t “widebody”? While touting another hub to hub connection as being noteworthy even though it adds zero utility to anybody who doesn’t live in Utah?
Are we sure the real reason United is flying Narita-Ulaanbaatar is to win sexiest new route at the Cranky Network Awards?
It’s certainly a contender now. I never imagined a US carrier would ever fly to Mongolia. Would be less shocking to see a pig fly by my window.
Read this comment 3 times and laughed every time. It’s so true!
EWR-Nuuk is pretty up there too, as contenders go. Just imagine how wild this is that the new Africa route is nearly forgotten!
Wany – Well this is going to require some serious discussion on our side.
Does a flight from Japan to Mongolia qualify even though our focus is on the Americas? It is a US-based airline, so… we’ll have to give this some serious thought. ;)
Do the routes even quality for the CNAs if they have not yet started by the time of the CNA ceremony? That was my second thought upon reading this post; my first was, “Wow, this post is going to make the Cranky Network Awards interesting!”
Kilroy – Yes. We go based on when routes are announced. So for the 2025 CNAs, anything announced from Jan 1 through Dec 31 2024 is eligible.
I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly) that back around 2000 and after 9/11, there was a lot of grumbling about how the airlines were pretty much the same. That’s apparently not true anymore.
I see many comments from many different people comparing airlines to each other. More often than not, one airline (the writer’s obvious favorite) is portrayed as being clearly superior to the others. My only replies are: Why can’t airlines have different business models? Why can’t they be unique, and not cookie cutter? The comments that portray one airline as superior to another tend to pick on one or two items that set the favored airline above the rest in the mind of the writer.
The one measure that IS fair game for comparison, IMHO, is financial performance, and often that’s not always a 100% accurate measure depending on market conditions, macro economic factors, etc. Comparing airlines on a completely impartial, objective, “apples-to-apples” basis is just about impossible. And I think that’s something to be celebrated. Vive la difference!
Great comment.
That was short lived as he claims in another comment above that the single DL SLC-ICN “will add more capacity than all of the narrowbody seasonal flights that UA just added,” without any substantiation as always.
Then the typical red herring that “UA is not starting any new TPAC daily widebody routes for 2025 while DL has already announced SLC-ICN.” Besides being completely irrelevant it’s also misleading since United already eats everybody’s lunch TPAC. Yeah, I’m sure Utah to Korea will even that out. Insert eyeroll emoji here.
Does anyone have data on the pricing premium (historical/industry norm?) of those secondary cities on non-stop versus connection? Not necessarily in premium cabins, but also in coach/basic economy fares. For those once-a-year tourists, I wonder if a connecting option is say, $50 cheaper, they’ll opt that instead of the United non-stop? This is also not factoring any sort of airline loyalty crowd. Then what kind of pricing premium United need to command on those routes operating on their own metal to justify them versus feeding into JV hubs?
Just a side note as someone based in Queens and frequently flies to Bilbao, I’d never fly United because Newark is just too inconvenient, and I’d rather take an AA/BA/IB business class connecting through LHR/MAD than United’s appalling Polaris on the 757 to Bilbao. Bilbao airport is tiny, and there’s absolutely nothing in terms of premium experience to offer Polaris passengers.
You’d rather increase your travel time by almost 50% by adding a connecting flight and incurring all of the travel risk that comes with a connection?
The 757s are fine. Not the most cutting edge but you’ll get a flat bed seat with an arrival at your destination when you’d otherwise be waiting for your connecting flight. No matter what seat you fly across the pond in, you’ll be exhausted after your 6 hour TATL flight (with little time for sleep) as you wait to board your coach seat with the blocked middle for the onward journey, wishing you were already in your hotel room.
Plus the A321XLRs will start arriving in just over a year, when the product will be top notch.
Assuming the UA Bilbao flights arrive in the morning, you can’t check in at the hotel anyway. I’d rather connect through Madrid, go to the Iberia lounge during connection and take a shower to freshen up for the day ahead. I think that way you’d arrive much more adjusted. IB has multiple flights to Bilbao a day, you can always catch the next one if due to IRROPS. You can argue the same about UA’s ancient 757, if that thing goes tech, you’re looking at rebooking of a whole different story.
I’d argue that the nonstops to the secondary destinations matter a lot for the economy & premium economy seats, perhaps as much or more so as the nonstops matter to those on the pointy end of the plane, especially if the alternatives require 4-9 hour layovers. After accounting for (de)boarding time and time spent on other necessities, those longer layovers don’t provide enough time to get much rest (even if one goes to the expense of a “nap pod” or on-airport hotel) and can add an extra day to the trip/travel length, which is especially important for those who have trouble sleeping in coach/premium economy long haul seats or those who aren’t retired and have limited time to spend on the total trip.
All this is in addition to the significant connection risk that Mark pointed out.
The hub to secondary non-stops also matter a lot to those of us who don’t originate from a hub airport. If I want to get to Bilbao, I now have another 1-stop option via United’s Newark hub.
My airport has non-stops to Iceland, London, Paris and Frankfurt, so I frequently can get to second tier cities in Europe with one stop. However, it is nice to have more connecting options in the US which usually will allow for an early morning arrival in my destination city.
Providing additional 1-stop options with alternative choices of layovers/times/etc is another great point, and it even helps those who live in hub airports, as it creates more 1-stop options for them as well.
I can just see New(ish) Pacific starting a hub in GOH. Its kinda like what Icelandair does, but slightly west!
This growth is so interesting. People can be so dismissive of UA’s moves. But they have retained most of their newly added cities. TFE went seasonal for winter. But Bergen was really the only one that got dumped completely.