Yesterday, United Airlines teased that it would announce new routes today. Well, the details have now been revealed, and there are some very cool additions… however, they’re not all from the US.
In this post:
United boosts Pacific network with three new routes
United will be launching flights to two new destinations in Asia and one new destination in Australia. Specifically, the Star Alliance carrier will fly to Adelaide, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City.
All three of these routes will be operated by Boeing 787-9s, featuring a total of 257 seats. This includes 48 Polaris seats (business class), 21 Premium Plus seats (premium economy), 39 Economy Plus seats (extra legroom economy), and 149 economy class seats. Let’s cover all the details.
United will fly from San Francisco to Adelaide
As of December 11, 2025, United will add 3x weekly flights between San Francisco (SFO) and Adelaide (ADL), on a seasonal basis. The new 8,070-mile flight will operate with the following schedule:
UA207 San Francisco to Adelaide departing 11:05PM arriving 9:30AM (+2 days)
UA208 Adelaide to San Francisco departing 2:55PM arriving 11:15AM
The westbound flight is blocked at 15hr50min and will operate on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, while the eastbound flight is blocked at 14hr50min and will operate on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays.
This will be United’s fourth destination in Australia, after Sydney (SYD), Melbourne (MEL), and Brisbane (BNE). This will be United’s second longest route to Australia, after the carrier’s Houston (IAH) to Sydney route, which covers a distance of 8,596 miles. United will also be the only airline flying between Adelaide and North America.
United will fly from Hong Kong to Bangkok
As of October 26, 2025, United will add daily flights between Hong Kong (HKG) and Bangkok (BKK). The 1,049-mile flight will operate with the following schedule:
UA822 Hong Kong to Bangkok departing 9:00AM arriving 10:50AM
UA821 Bangkok to Hong Kong departing 4:40PM arriving 8:45PM
The southbound flight is blocked at 2hr50min, while the northbound flight is blocked at 3hr5min. As you can see, this isn’t a nonstop route from the United States, but instead, this will allow one-stop service from Los Angeles or San Francisco to Bangkok.
The flight between Los Angeles and Hong Kong will be retimed to make this route possible. United last served Bangkok out of Tokyo Narita (NRT), and that route was cut in 2014.
United will fly from Hong Kong to Ho Chi Minh City
As of October 26, 2025, United will add daily flights between Hong Kong (HKG) and Ho Chi Minh City (SGN). The 925-mile flight will operate with the following schedule:
UA152 Hong Kong to Ho Chi Minh City departing 9:15PM arriving 10:55PM
UA153 Ho Chi Minh City to Hong Kong departing 6:00AM arriving 9:35AM
The southbound flight is blocked at 2hr40min, while the northbound flight is blocked at 2hr35min. Much like the Bangkok service, this isn’t a nonstop route from the United States, but instead, this will allow one-stop service from Los Angeles or San Francisco to Bangkok.
United served this exact route several years back, though it was cut in 2016.
My take on United’s Pacific expansion
What a cool expansion. A few thoughts…
First of all, the Adelaide route is a bit surprising. Obviously United needs more places to send its wide body aircraft in winter, to balance the summer seasonal flights to Europe. United has tried to expand rapidly in the South Pacific, with mixed success. So it’s interesting to see the airline now targeting a new destination, which hasn’t ever seen nonstop service to the United States. I have to imagine that there are some significant local incentives in place?
Regarding Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City, those are both destinations that have been rumored for United, though I guess we got a “light” version of these routes, given that they operate via Hong Kong. Having some access to Thailand and Vietnam with a US carrier is cool, though admittedly this doesn’t do much to simplify travel compared to a countless number of other one-stop options that are available.
As an aviation geek, I love the concept of these fifth freedom flights. The only thing that’s surprising, perhaps, is that these flights aren’t out of Tokyo, where United is continuing to build up a larger presence, including for intra-Asia flights. United also has a lot more transpacific capacity there. Then again, it’s a much shorter journey from Hong Kong to these destinations.
These new Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City flights will likely be the longest rotations for United crews. I’m actually struggling to figure out how the airline will staff these efficiently, especially since United no longer has Hong Kong based flight attendants. In particular, I imagine that in Ho Chi Minh City, crews will need to have a layover of two nights. Interesting logistics.
Bottom line
United has announced a Pacific expansion, whereby we’ll see the airline fly from San Francisco to Adelaide, as well as from Hong Kong to both Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City. Adelaide will be United’s fourth destination in Australia, while United will be the only US carrier to fly to Thailand and Vietnam.
It’s fun to see this expansion, and I’m curious to see how it works out. While fifth freedom flights might not necessarily be the most efficient, they sure are cool!
What do you make of United’s Pacific expansion?
wow this is very cool
Ben, please visit the past and inform how the NRT and HKG United hubs once operated. I remember 20+ years ago flying United to BKK and SIN through NRT. And to SGN through HKG. I remember at the time you were just an adolescent posting about mileage runs on Flyertalk. However, you know aviation history. How did these hubs work for staffing?
I'm just looking back and trying to remember when USA airlines had...
Ben, please visit the past and inform how the NRT and HKG United hubs once operated. I remember 20+ years ago flying United to BKK and SIN through NRT. And to SGN through HKG. I remember at the time you were just an adolescent posting about mileage runs on Flyertalk. However, you know aviation history. How did these hubs work for staffing?
I'm just looking back and trying to remember when USA airlines had bigger footprints abroad. I'm not looking for a Gary Leff 1960s Pan Am glory days of travel post. Or maybe I am.
Back then UA had Singapore based flight crews. I used to take very early flights from SIN to both NRT and HKG on the 747-200. They served Starbucks coffee and handed out super 8 videos of something similar and the service was friendly. The good old days!
Delta has the best pacific network, period.
you can define "best" lots of ways.
"Best in the Pacific" for DL means the highest profits per seat mile and the most fuel efficient fleet.
Way cool indeed! I am a flight attendant based in San Francisco and am always so happy to go to Australia or New Zealand -ANYWHERE! So it's a thrill to go to Adelaide!
My guess is the crew will stopover in HKG for 24 hours & operate SGN / BKK flights as turnarounds. Again stopover in HKG FOR 24 hours before heading back to SFO/LAX.
Agreed. This is common on these types of sectors, like SQ operating JNB-CPT-JNB as an extension from SIN, and EK operating SYD-CHC-SYD as an extension from DXB. A nice same day turnaround that's good for the pay packet.
Lame.
United’s expansion into Adelaide, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City might seem like a straightforward network play, but there’s probably more going on under the surface. Take Adelaide—on paper, it helps balance aircraft usage during the slower winter months and gives United another foothold in Australia, but why Adelaide, a city that’s never had direct U.S. service? Maybe United sees a long-term shift in business travel, betting that Adelaide’s growing defense, space, and renewable energy...
United’s expansion into Adelaide, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City might seem like a straightforward network play, but there’s probably more going on under the surface. Take Adelaide—on paper, it helps balance aircraft usage during the slower winter months and gives United another foothold in Australia, but why Adelaide, a city that’s never had direct U.S. service? Maybe United sees a long-term shift in business travel, betting that Adelaide’s growing defense, space, and renewable energy industries will attract more U.S. investment. Cargo could also be a factor—Adelaide is a major wine export hub, and United might be eyeing a piece of that high-value shipping business. The Hong Kong tag flights are another interesting move; Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City are big markets, but instead of launching nonstops, which would mean going head-to-head with Middle Eastern and Asian carriers, United is taking a lower-risk approach by routing through Hong Kong, a city where post-pandemic shifts in aviation policy could make this a smart long-term play. Fellow reader Tim Dunn, who is often right in his strategic understanding of the commercial airline world, would likely point out that these kinds of moves come with serious operational challenges, especially since United no longer has Hong Kong-based crews, making staffing more complex and potentially expensive. Unless, of course, United is using this as a quiet test for a new crew deployment model or even as leverage in labor negotiations. And then there’s the premium leisure angle—Adelaide’s wine country, Bangkok’s booming luxury tourism, and Ho Chi Minh City’s rising status as a cultural and economic hub all suggest United might be shifting toward a more experience-driven traveler base instead of just chasing corporate flyers. Of course, some airlines—ones with a more calculated, strategic approach—might look at these routes and decide they don’t quite make sense yet. Delta, for example, has built its international expansion around fortress hubs, strong partnerships, and carefully timed market entries, avoiding the kind of speculative plays United tends to go for. Whether United is ahead of the curve or just throwing darts at a map remains to be seen, but either way, it’s never boring to watch.
very well said, esp. about the risk profile.
UA's moves here, just like many of their recent international announcements, are about adding dots on a route map more than committing to a significant increase in capacity.
International tag flights such as the beyond HKG flying mean the flights that are being tagged have underperformed or UA thinks that they will be getting better revenue on the tag that what they are forcing off - which...
very well said, esp. about the risk profile.
UA's moves here, just like many of their recent international announcements, are about adding dots on a route map more than committing to a significant increase in capacity.
International tag flights such as the beyond HKG flying mean the flights that are being tagged have underperformed or UA thinks that they will be getting better revenue on the tag that what they are forcing off - which is unlikely given the higher costs of the intra-Asia round trip.
ADL is likely just about a seasonal less than daily route that may or may not be subsidized.
UA is trying to keep metal moving in the winter and justify the growth of its workforce in the peak months and for the future growth.
Ultimately, you are correct that DL grows routes w/ the intention of serving those routes for the long term while UA is much more willing to start flights for a potential short-term gain. As we saw during the 2023-24 winter, UA got a lot of their winter Pacific expansion wrong, they lost money over the winter for TPAC while DL made money, and UA pulled back large pieces of that expansion while they have doubled down on other parts such as increasing SFO-MNL here.
it is absolutely true that if UA can make the kinds of sustainable margins on int'l flying that DL makes across its system, DL will add international flights and they have more efficient airplanes to improve the potential for profitability.
it is fun to watch but alot of people get stuck in the rah rah, size and dots and lines on a map to understand what is really going on.
Wow Tim, using a new name to praise yourself.
How many more alter ego you're going to create?
Sadly, it isn't even a new name. It's the same one that replied to him with a well-formatted 1,000 word response in 3 minutes a few weeks ago.
Tim just makes something on chatGPT that agrees with himself then replies to himself. At least this time he's been a bit smarter to wait more than two minutes before replying to himself.
He got ridiculed enough for that in previous attempts to learn.
Tim, as always, you bring solid analysis to the conversation—whether people agree with it or not. The comparison between UA and DL’s international strategies is particularly interesting, especially in how UA is prioritizing short-term opportunities versus DL’s more calculated, long-term growth. The tag flights through HKG are definitely a bold move, but the crew logistics and cost factors you mentioned could be a real challenge. Curious to see if this ends up being a test...
Tim, as always, you bring solid analysis to the conversation—whether people agree with it or not. The comparison between UA and DL’s international strategies is particularly interesting, especially in how UA is prioritizing short-term opportunities versus DL’s more calculated, long-term growth. The tag flights through HKG are definitely a bold move, but the crew logistics and cost factors you mentioned could be a real challenge. Curious to see if this ends up being a test case for broader shifts in how UA approaches intra-Asia operations. Always appreciate the discussion!
thank you and let's be clear that we are not the same person.
there are people that don't want to admit that there are people that understand the industry, can intelligently converse about it, and leave the naysayers in the dust.
United has long focused far more on sexy international expansion than on the domestic market while Delta has long recognized that domestic travel is where US airlines have long made the majority of their...
thank you and let's be clear that we are not the same person.
there are people that don't want to admit that there are people that understand the industry, can intelligently converse about it, and leave the naysayers in the dust.
United has long focused far more on sexy international expansion than on the domestic market while Delta has long recognized that domestic travel is where US airlines have long made the majority of their profits. United operated its massive Pacific network at breakeven (not profitable, not losing money) for years in the 2010s - after DL pulled down its NRT hub and made its TPAC network very profitable.
UA execs talk incessantly about closing the earnings gap w/ DL. Even with their $1 billion labor cost advantage to DL, UA hasn't closed the gap and it is because they make short term decisions regarding extraordinarily costly assets including employees.
DL knows how to run a globally leading airline and is passed the phase of trying to toss out sexy network announcements.... and yet DL is still adding as much if not more system capacity than UA.
thank you for proving that there are people that appreciate forums like this and the intelligent interaction that CAN take place, but sadly often does not.
Tim, appreciate the insights. The contrast between UA’s ambitious international plays and DL’s more methodical, profitability-driven approach is fascinating, especially given UA’s past struggles to make TPAC work. The billion-dollar labor cost advantage is an interesting point—if they still can’t close the earnings gap with DL, it raises real questions about whether their network strategy is sustainable or if they’re just chasing headlines.
And just to be clear for everyone—I’m not Tim, and we’re not...
Tim, appreciate the insights. The contrast between UA’s ambitious international plays and DL’s more methodical, profitability-driven approach is fascinating, especially given UA’s past struggles to make TPAC work. The billion-dollar labor cost advantage is an interesting point—if they still can’t close the earnings gap with DL, it raises real questions about whether their network strategy is sustainable or if they’re just chasing headlines.
And just to be clear for everyone—I’m not Tim, and we’re not the same person. I’ve been following the airline industry for years and enjoy discussing network strategy, profitability, and competition with people who have an informed perspective. Healthy debate is part of what makes these discussions valuable, but assuming that anyone who agrees on certain points must be the same person only takes away from the conversation. Let’s keep it focused on the airlines, not the posters.
What happened to you during childhood, to become such a narcissist?
I had a perfectly happy childhood. you clearly never learned to accept other people's ideas.
You failed kindergarten because everything that matters is life is learned in kindergarten.
There is an immense market for South Australians to fly non- stop from Adelaide and NOT “direct” through the East coast gateways so I see this as a good thing and would imagine the loads will reflect that
Great work, the next step is to start banning any Australian, Thai and Vietnamese airlines from entering the US. All they do is crash anyway and can't keep our US Citizens safe.
EVERYONE ELSE: please don't fall for this clear (and incredibly lame) attempt at engagement baiting.
I'll take the bait from the one who bait others by telling them beware of baiting.
More $$$$$$ for Ben.
Great follow up comment!
Yeah just a drop kick
Why anyone would want to fly United from HKG to those 2 destinations mentioned amazes me when you have CX operating them. Though not as frequent as CX used to but you're trading in a far superior product for a below average one.
Because AA and Cathay don't offer the service to the USA via Hong Kong that they did pre-pandemic. Cathay is a shadow of it's former self. UA doesn't want to give up on Hong Kong and the airport provides and excellent transit experience for connections. Additionally, they want to better utilize their planes that need to fly since they no longer are able to fly from NYC, ORD and IAD to Hong Kong, many places in China that had service in pre pandemic and pre-Ukraine.
Price. And, ironically, better hard product in business class,
CX charges a premium for ex-HKG traffic.
Many leisure passengers in Y will buy the cheapest fare all things considered.
The UA ex-HKG tagged flights will be on the 77W / 789. That means Polaris Business class seats up front, instead of the Recliner seats on CX’s regional business class.
And some Americans will always fly with a US carrier first. That’s just the way it is.
What's even more amazing: is that people still make this (ridiculous) kind of statement, over and over again, despite the fact that THE ANSWER NEVER CHANGES, and applies to any given carrier on the planet.
Price. Schedule. Contracts. Convenience. FFP. Upgrades. Certificates. Or (here's a shocker) they just plain want to. How is that difficult?
Can anybody speculate why the SFO-ADL-SFO turn around spends so long in ADL?
Surely the Adelaide route is United identifying that there is a market for people wanting to travel to the US from Adelaide who've had to connect in either Sydney or Melbourne before and are figuring this is a market worth tapping in to as it's somewhere that's never had direct flights before
I agree, I think it's a smart move.
I believe Aus-USA via CX (+AA if necessary) is actually quite popular. Problem is CX hasn't resumed ADL at all post-pandemic, meaning North America-bound pax are left to either long routings on QR/EK; limited choices on SQ (who also don't interline much with UA); or QF if pax can stomach their sky-high fares.
This move by UA could prompt CX to get back in the ADL game.
HKG-SGN/BKK are relatively under-served post pandemic. CX are now operating fewer flights to both. TYO-SGN/BKK actually saw growth by JL/NH/VN in comparison, and therefore the market is saturated. Plus, UA codesahre/interline with CX so they know how many pax are onward to SGN/BKK daily.
United is running double daily flights between LAX/SFO and Hong Kong now.
From LAX/SFO to HKG, one is running as a redeye, and then returning to US as a late morning flight. The second flight is a day time departure from HKG, and an early evening return to US.
Back then when UA runs daily HKG-BKK/SIN/SGN flights, the outbound flight will depart HK late at night, and then the plane will overnight there...
United is running double daily flights between LAX/SFO and Hong Kong now.
From LAX/SFO to HKG, one is running as a redeye, and then returning to US as a late morning flight. The second flight is a day time departure from HKG, and an early evening return to US.
Back then when UA runs daily HKG-BKK/SIN/SGN flights, the outbound flight will depart HK late at night, and then the plane will overnight there before flying back to HK in the early morning. The crews will actually stay at a "lounge" in between flights.
Now I am curious if the flight will run an early morning HKG-BKK/SGN flight and then late morning return to HK, before an afternoon departure to US. This flight schedule will allow more connections to and from other parts of US, as well as more attractive to some local traffic from HKG to BKK/SGN. I can see an 7/8am flight HKG to BKK/SGN, and then a 10/11am return BKK/SGN to HKG, and the flight can return to US around 3/4pm. The crews don't need to stay overnight at a lounge.
Anyway, now it makes sense that United will reopen the lounge at Hong Kong. With these two SE Asian flights, it makes financial sense to reopen the United Club. Hopefully they will plan a Polaris Lounge too. They can use the former Thai Airways space and make it into a Polaris Lounge.
I recall there were plans for a Polaris lounge at HKG pre COVID-19. Hopefully they restore those plans.
My guess about teh asian routes not originating from NRT is:
First, UA and ANA don't want to compete directly, so they are avoiding any route overlapping.
Second, probably, the BKK and SGN rotations can be completed with minimum impact on the aircraft rotation time in HKG, given the much shorter distance. If these flights would depart from NRT, the shcedule would certainly need major adjustments, which could impact connectivity, caus further overlapping...
My guess about teh asian routes not originating from NRT is:
First, UA and ANA don't want to compete directly, so they are avoiding any route overlapping.
Second, probably, the BKK and SGN rotations can be completed with minimum impact on the aircraft rotation time in HKG, given the much shorter distance. If these flights would depart from NRT, the shcedule would certainly need major adjustments, which could impact connectivity, caus further overlapping with ANA's own US flights... plus, not sure, but i guess Tokyo slot availability could also have some implications on this? Not sure if NRT is slot restricted as HND is, but for sure HKG is way less restricted than any of those, given they just started the three runway system plus Cathay hasnt yet fully recovered its pre-2019 capacity...
Fair point about not wanting to tread on ANA's toes. When UA announced their last round of expansion out of NRT, all the routes notably were ones that ANA did not serve. NRT is not slot restricted like HND as far as I know, but I can't imagine ANA would be too happy about UA introducing routes that directly compete with them and they're far too valuable of a partner for UA so I imagine UA is fine preserving their relationship opting for HKG instead.
It's also probably to feed/fill their own HKG routes.
UA interlines with CX a lot out of HKG and uses HKG to sell a ton of secondary Asia destinations like BKK and SGN instead of via TYO.
They probably saw an opportunity to leverage those HKG flights with the onwards traffic.
I think many might find the shorter flight time from HKG more appealing than the 7hrs it can take from Tokyo. Especially after a 13hr flight...
Which is true if one originates from HKG. For pax ex-LAX/SFO, the total travel time will be more or less the same. Might even be a few miles shorter via TYO.
Two thoughts on this re: BKK since I live there half the year: 1) I'm wondering if they're adding the HKG-BKK route as a placeholder until they are able to codeshare with TG once/if they ever get back to a Category 1 rating with the FAA and 2) If not #1, I'm lost on this lol. While I prefer SkyTeam for various reasons, the fares on ANA metal - whether ticketed through them or through...
Two thoughts on this re: BKK since I live there half the year: 1) I'm wondering if they're adding the HKG-BKK route as a placeholder until they are able to codeshare with TG once/if they ever get back to a Category 1 rating with the FAA and 2) If not #1, I'm lost on this lol. While I prefer SkyTeam for various reasons, the fares on ANA metal - whether ticketed through them or through United - are always very competitive, if not the best I see to BKK and other SEA destinations from my other neck of the woods (Chicago and NYC)...there's no way I'd book on UA metal to connect in HKG to get to BKK or SGN when I can book on ANA for the same price. JAL is also very competitive from North America to SEA, so unless their seeing that they cannot compete using their own metal out of NRT/HAN, this doesn't make sense to me unless it has something to do with #1. And even currently, with Emirates serving BKK-HKG, unless there seeing huge demand on this sector (and they may be - those Emirates flights to HKG are usually packed, at least when I've taken them), I'm scratching my head.
oops...*they're* and SEA = South East Asia not Seattle ;)
BKK-HKG had 4.2 million seats last year and was the 7th busiest international route in the world. From what I read on OAG the capacity is still down 13% from 2019 so in my opion it's a pretty good use of time if the plane are just going to be sitting at HKG anyway even if they don't plan to launch a nonstop.
it is still at best profitable on a direct operating cost basis which means that UA hopes to make money on the assumption the plane would be doing nothing else if it didn't fly that route.
It is highly unlikely that UA can make money flying tags within Asia against carriers that have much lower costs.
UA simply needs a way to keep its assets - including personnel - utilized during the winter which is...
it is still at best profitable on a direct operating cost basis which means that UA hopes to make money on the assumption the plane would be doing nothing else if it didn't fly that route.
It is highly unlikely that UA can make money flying tags within Asia against carriers that have much lower costs.
UA simply needs a way to keep its assets - including personnel - utilized during the winter which is why they have repeatedly added TPAC or intra-Asia widebody capacity during the winter while adding a little bit of widebody and narrowbody capacity during the summer, some of which is seasonal.
Other airlines including both AA and DL are receiving more new widebody aircraft than DL. AA and DL are both adding far more capacity to Europe this summer and increasing capacity to S. America during the northern winter. DL, like UA, is adding some seasonal winter capacity esp. to the S. Pacific while DL is also retiring widebodies, something neither AA or UA are doing.
DL operates the most fuel efficient widebody fleet among US carriers, the Pacific is where fuel efficiency matters the most, DL's TPAC schedule is almost entirely on new generation powered aircraft and largely A350s, and DL's higher fuel efficiency is a significant component to its higher profitability over the Pacific -which means UA cannot address its profit deficit per ASM to DL until UA starts replacing some of its 777s, including the -300ERs, with new generation aircraft.
neither AA or DL are simply chasing the same goals across the Pacific or around the world.
UA is only partially achieving the goals it sets out and is sacrificing profitability in order to achieve growth.
@ Tim Dunn, yep, I get what DL is doing. That said, they haven't really done/announced much new TPAC with their 350s other than add SLC-ICN for this summer. They have 330-900s running from SEA to ICN, HAN, and TPE, and I believe some of the flights out of LAX are also on the neos, too. I'm waiting for them to announce more service to Asia beyond ICN and Tokyo!
For that matter I would always choose a (non-Chinese) Asian airline over a US airline.
And if you have to change somewhere then I'd rather it be closer to the US as I don't like ultra-long flights (12 hours plus)
So flying to Asia on JAL or ANA vis Japan makes the most sense, and both offer First on some flights.
The Adelaide route is interesting.
Ishrion Aviation is also reporting a 2nd daily SFO-MNL flight for the winter season. It seems like the schedules will be tweaked for better aircraft utilization at HKG by simply adding SGN/BKK.
It’s still impressive to see UA’s growth over the likes of DL/AA in the pacific.
Roberto,
I realize that you are not exactly known for knowing facts, let alone properly using them, but the actual size relationship based on ASMs across the Pacific is roughly that UA is twice the size of size of DL and DL is twice the size of AA, meaning that AA is half the size of DL. DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific right after the NW merger but quickly started pulling...
Roberto,
I realize that you are not exactly known for knowing facts, let alone properly using them, but the actual size relationship based on ASMs across the Pacific is roughly that UA is twice the size of size of DL and DL is twice the size of AA, meaning that AA is half the size of DL. DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific right after the NW merger but quickly started pulling legs off of the NRT hub and UA quickly overtook DL in TPAC size.
Across the Atlantic, DL was the largest carrier across the Atlantic for years, UA overtook them post covid, and based on current capacity, DL will overtake UA to Europe in size this summer and could overtake UA in overall TATL size when DL likely starts India and adds RUH, restarting Arab Middle East service which DL has not flown in years. AA is about 80% of the size of DL and UA across the Atlantic.
UA is slightly larger than DL to Latin America and both are far enough behind AA that the only “race” is whether DL or UA remains #2.
If you count JVs, DL/KE under the JV now is about 2/3 the size of UA/NH’s TPAC size and the size relationship will grow to near parity if OZ’s current TPAC capacity is added to the JV or if DL starts enough of its own service to offset what of OZ’s capacity that KE doesn’t absorb.
It is hard to know how the TATL JVs will match in size once all of the new carriers are added to AF/KL and LH Groups but, at worst, they are pretty comparably sized.
To Latin America, DL/LA is larger than AA to S. America; AA’s size advantage is to Central America and the Caribbean.
If you come to finances, AA has not made money flying either the Atlantic or Pacific on its own metal for years. DL makes more money per ASM than UA flying the Pacific and DL makes more flying the Atlantic than UA even though UA is larger including using narrowbody aircraft to continental Europe which AA and DL do not do.
AA makes lots of money flying to Latin America while DL and UA make comparable amounts per ASM.
As for those that argue that finances don’t matter, UA’s execs repeatedly state that it is their intent to close the EARNINGS and revenue gap with DL. DL still makes more money not just overall but also on an ASM basis throughout its network and across the Atlantic and Pacific as well as domestically.
As for those that argue that the DOT numbers (from where profitability data is sourced) is wrong, then tell us how to redivide the profits to match the way YOU think they should be – but the total profits can’t change. If you make UA’s TATL and TPAC profitability higher, you have to reduce UA’s domestic profitability. Most of AA’s international network does not make money but they fly it because their pilot and JV agreements require that AA have some of its own service in those markets. As much as people say otherwise, AA flies a lower percentage of the capacity under its TATL and TPAC JVs than DL – which the internet usually argues, incorrectly, that DL is the US carrier that outsources its flying to its JV partners.
Thank you for your comment, Roberto. As long as people like you make the statements you do, I will be happy to come along and provide actual facts.
Hahahahaha, rough morning for you Timmy? I stopped reading after the words “Tim Dunn” at the top. Glad I could waste your time. Looks like a personal best 7 paragraph rant under one of my comments. Get a life, loser.
good... don't read. IT clearly went way over your head.
Others do read and others understand the principles that I explain.
Just because you and others want to have a one way shouting match, this and other sites exist because Ben (here) is willing to allow other people to supplement his thoughts.
People who are open to the whole story - which probably does not include you and others - benefit.
It is no loss to me that you shut down the conversation when I enter it
Roberto wasn't even going after Delta. Do you have nothing better to do Tim? Get a job dude. Get a life.
I really don’t understand why you guys keep trying to have a rational “discussion” with Tim. He clearly has deep mental issues and he’s incapable of having a rational discussion. It seems that he is beyond professional help. Yet people keep saying rational things to him. It’s useless. Just take him for what he is, a toy. It’s free entertainment. He creates fake profiles to compliment his own comments and seems to think that OMAAT...
I really don’t understand why you guys keep trying to have a rational “discussion” with Tim. He clearly has deep mental issues and he’s incapable of having a rational discussion. It seems that he is beyond professional help. Yet people keep saying rational things to him. It’s useless. Just take him for what he is, a toy. It’s free entertainment. He creates fake profiles to compliment his own comments and seems to think that OMAAT depends on him to capitalize. Really, it’s gold ! Just don’t try to engage in a rational discussion with him. His mental issues don’t allow him to do that.
the only people that have mental issues which clearly includes ability to understand and analyze facts are the people that repeatedly shoot down the messenger and try to shut down the conversation.
The only people that should be walking away are those that can't appreciate that this is a forum for everyone's ideas, even those you don't agree with.
Tim Dunn,
Everyone realize that you are not exactly known for knowing facts, let alone properly using them.
Timmy, please step outside and touch some grass.
The Adelaide service is interesting. At present Qantas doesn't offer any international services from there, that United has chosen to do so will not go unnoticed by the South Australian travelling public.
Great news. Now they just need to load some award inventory at the saver level.
Bangkok by many measures is the world‘s most visited city by tourists.
Seems incredible that there is not a single direct flight from the US to BKK
Meanwhile Adelaide gets direct service
I have been in both Adelaide and Bangkok in the last month. All of Adelaide would fit within one of Bangkok’s dozen districts
The decision to favor Adelaide over Bangkok is analogous to turning down Chicago to focus on Amarillo TX
sorry but Paris is by far the most visited tourism city in the world.
neither city has anywhere near enough business demand to pay for the flights that UA is planning to operate which is significant given UA's fairly premium 787 configurations.
this is all an exercise in trying to find places to fly planes when Europe demand is low.
Sorry Tim it is really not.
Visitors in millions during 2024 as follows :
Bangkok 32.3 million
Istanbul 23
London 21.7
Hong Kong 20.5
Mecca 19.3
Antalya 19.3
Dubai 18.2
Macau 18
Paris 17.4
But Icarus, Timmy doesn't do facts!
now restate that as foreign visitors.
Paris is by far the world's largest destination for foreign visitors.
Counting Thais that go to BKK has no benefit to UA or any other foreign airline.
Darling, these are INTERNATIONAL VISITORS by land air or sea. The stats do not include domestic visitors. However I know you don’t do facts. It’s just your truth however noone else’s
That appears to be the Euromonitor rankings which rank by foreign visitors which they define as visitors arriving from outside the country who stay for at least 24 hours
@Tim haha. Just say you were wrong. In your original statement you did not say for ‘foreign visitors’.
Also, according to Euromonitor International, Bangkok emerged as the top city for international visitors, attracting 32 million travelers which is exactly what @Icarus wrote earlier. This is based on the ‘World’s top 10 cities in international arrivals in 2024’.
because there are sixteen million caveats to make any statement true doesn't mean that I or they are wrong.
Paris has long been considered the most visited international city in the world and there are ample current sources that still say that, caveat or not.
and it doesn't really matter how many people visit Bangkok - it is well in excess of the number of seats that UA will offer. UA will be gnat...
because there are sixteen million caveats to make any statement true doesn't mean that I or they are wrong.
Paris has long been considered the most visited international city in the world and there are ample current sources that still say that, caveat or not.
and it doesn't really matter how many people visit Bangkok - it is well in excess of the number of seats that UA will offer. UA will be gnat on the back of an elephant at BKK.
They need enough people to pay their costs plus generate a profit. How they calculate those costs and the level of profit, if any, they generate is what matters.
Sorry Timmy however Paris is not! Get over it
That's not how ChatGPTim works.
Exclude the 19 million visitors from outside France. You’re including domestic visitors which is not what we are discussing here.
I do appreciate that it’s very difficult for many Americans to understand as the concept of international versus domestic is alien to them given their understanding of anything outside the contiguous USA.
To make you understand this is INTERNATIONAL VISITORS. This means people who live outside France.
London, over 21 million. This...
Exclude the 19 million visitors from outside France. You’re including domestic visitors which is not what we are discussing here.
I do appreciate that it’s very difficult for many Americans to understand as the concept of international versus domestic is alien to them given their understanding of anything outside the contiguous USA.
To make you understand this is INTERNATIONAL VISITORS. This means people who live outside France.
London, over 21 million. This means people who are domiciled outside the United Kingdom.
Mecca has more significantly more than Paris for obvious reasons. Although you may not understand, it’s a result of the millions of people who visit there from overseas as it’s the centre of the Islamic world.
I'm actually a tad less surprised at the Adelaide announcement than some other commenters. A lot of people seem to forget just how much Adelaide has grown in the past 20 years to a city of 1.5 million people, and just how much South Australia's tourism industry has grown in the same period. Not to mention the export market from the surrounding food and wine country. While the Perth market would certainly be even bigger,...
I'm actually a tad less surprised at the Adelaide announcement than some other commenters. A lot of people seem to forget just how much Adelaide has grown in the past 20 years to a city of 1.5 million people, and just how much South Australia's tourism industry has grown in the same period. Not to mention the export market from the surrounding food and wine country. While the Perth market would certainly be even bigger, the logistics of operating this route (which would be the 3rd longest in the world) create obvious challenges both logistically and financially. Good on UA for giving it a crack.
These routes are disappointing since most Americans would still have to do a transcon first before their transpacific flight, which is a really long way around vs flights via NRT. If EWR-HKG came back it would be more direct.
Agreed. I understand fifth freedom vietnam-japan flights aren't allowed, but I'm not sure these tag flights will do well.
If you live on the west coast at best this is the same as one of any number of Asian carrier options (and actually worse because in the case of irrops most of the Asian carriers have multiple flights from their hubs into BKK and SGN). And for everyone else, it's worse since you need...
Agreed. I understand fifth freedom vietnam-japan flights aren't allowed, but I'm not sure these tag flights will do well.
If you live on the west coast at best this is the same as one of any number of Asian carrier options (and actually worse because in the case of irrops most of the Asian carriers have multiple flights from their hubs into BKK and SGN). And for everyone else, it's worse since you need a positioning flight before even starting vs choosing from one of any number of gateway cities to do the US-Asia leg.
And I doubt there's much local demand for these fifth freedom flights vs just taking Cathay or other local carriers if you live in hkg or in the destinations.
Even as simply an exercise to utilize otherwise idle aircraft I think they could have found better options. Fifth freedoms from NRT would be much more viable given how many cities United flies into NRT from.
Exactly. In Chicago, it just creates more capacity and options for us to take a combination of ANA/United to get to SEA. With the various flights from NRT and HND to Chicago, the connections to SEA are not as clear cut as they used to be. If your USA destination doesn't fly to both HND and NRT, you have fewer options to seamlessly get to BKK or SGN via one stop (this is a similar...
Exactly. In Chicago, it just creates more capacity and options for us to take a combination of ANA/United to get to SEA. With the various flights from NRT and HND to Chicago, the connections to SEA are not as clear cut as they used to be. If your USA destination doesn't fly to both HND and NRT, you have fewer options to seamlessly get to BKK or SGN via one stop (this is a similar issue when trying to take AA or JAL). This is really exciting because it gives ANA/United more options to get people to and from SEA while creating more options for people on the West Coast to get the SEA as well.
Most passengers on the flights to SGN or BKK will be from the LA area since LAX is the largest destination-origin airport in the country.
Under the section of HCM citiy, it is still written as "The schedule for the route hasn’t yet been published, but the intent is that the 787 will do a direct turn in Bangkok". The city name needs to be replaced.
Adelaide might work if UA can suction off enough west coast pax whom otherwise were going to have to connect to get there.
As for the other southeast asia destinations, it's "cool" to be physically able to fly UA metal there, but as stated by the author, having to stop at HKG each way means there isn't any added convenience factor vs other ways of getting there from the US.
Personally, if I'm connecting/stopping at HKG I'd prefer to do it on Cathay.
Interesting that HKG–BKK is served by EK, ET and now UA, in contrast to BKK–SIN, which no longer has fifth-freedom service now that CX has pulled out of the route (and so did GF in October). SIN is losing more and more fifth-freedoms in the region, with KL to DPS, ET to KUL and TK to MEL being among the few remaining ones.
There are very few airlines that serve SIN and not BKK, and...
Interesting that HKG–BKK is served by EK, ET and now UA, in contrast to BKK–SIN, which no longer has fifth-freedom service now that CX has pulled out of the route (and so did GF in October). SIN is losing more and more fifth-freedoms in the region, with KL to DPS, ET to KUL and TK to MEL being among the few remaining ones.
There are very few airlines that serve SIN and not BKK, and so far UA was one of them, with NZ being another. Far more airlines serve BKK and avoid SIN, including many from the Levant, Central Asia and (of course) Russia — so it’s nice for BKK to finally achieve parity with SIN as far as UA is concerned.
SGN is another interesting add, though one might recollect that EY chose to serve HAN instead of SGN during its big route reveal in November. Of course SGN is the bigger of the two Vietnamese cities, and has more service, so what Etihad did went against the grain.
All-in-all, it’s cool for UA to expand in Southeast Asia beyond the Philippines — just like the 2000s and 2010s. Now just add some more routes like this from SIN!
@Proximanova Interesting observation. Just curious why do u think airlines are increasingly avoiding SIN?
Because SIN is the world’s best airport (outside Qatar, that is!), and it costs a pretty penny for airlines to fly there. Not to mention it has tons of transpacific service — primarily on SQ, but also UA and AC. BKK has only one YVR flight on AC, and nothing to the US; Thai Airways doesn’t do that. BKK may be one of the world’s most touristy cities, but that has done nothing for premium...
Because SIN is the world’s best airport (outside Qatar, that is!), and it costs a pretty penny for airlines to fly there. Not to mention it has tons of transpacific service — primarily on SQ, but also UA and AC. BKK has only one YVR flight on AC, and nothing to the US; Thai Airways doesn’t do that. BKK may be one of the world’s most touristy cities, but that has done nothing for premium demand and yields.
And that’s why so many airlines fly to only BKK, which is so much cheaper to fly to. Austrian Airlines, LOT Polish Airlines, Oman Air, El Al, Kenya Airways, Kuwait Airways, Royal Jordanian, Air Astana, Uzbekistan Airways… none of these airlines from lower-profile countries serve Singapore.
Oh, and Suvarnabhumi is my least favourite major airport in Southeast Asia. I consider KLIA to be leaps and bounds ahead of it. It’s a shame that BKK is architecturally impressive from the outside, with all those diverse airlines, but an ugly grey hellhole inside. Changi, on the other hand, is the best by a long shot, with only HKG coming close.
More likely, SIN is too far south to make the route viable for Northern Hemisphere airlines. It adds hours on both the originating flight and the fifth freedom flight.
United has only 737s in NRT and those domestically configured 737s would be quite uncompetitive for 5-6 hrs flight to SGN and BKK from NRT, served by JL/NH/VN/TG.
Vietnam - US Aviation Agreements prevent fifth freedom via Japan
The 787 is a better experience for passengers for sure.
Glad to see some of the old Pacific routes coming back. Always wondered why it took Kirby so long to reassert dominance in Asia, but it seems like we're trending back that way as fleet deliveries start to increase again. Still a little confused about why the routing for BKK/SGN is serviced through HKG instead of NRT. The logistics of crew scheduling and aircraft turnaround in a Hong Kong facility United has all but abandoned...
Glad to see some of the old Pacific routes coming back. Always wondered why it took Kirby so long to reassert dominance in Asia, but it seems like we're trending back that way as fleet deliveries start to increase again. Still a little confused about why the routing for BKK/SGN is serviced through HKG instead of NRT. The logistics of crew scheduling and aircraft turnaround in a Hong Kong facility United has all but abandoned compared to 15-20 years ago doesn't quite make sense. My only guess is that they want to avoid a direct clash with ANA, which serves the routes from both Narita and Haneda. Even if that's the case, surely United has the slots at Narita to operate the more standard routing pre-2014. My only concern is that even if the new routes have relatively high loads, the longevity is a bit volatile simply because they are being routed through HKG, which has been a very unpredictable market in recent years. Curious to hear others' thoughts on the matter...
lol....unless you're already connecting from the US on UA, why would anyone purposely fly them? So much competition intra-asia with great hard and soft products, UA simply can't compete...even some select LCCs are probably better
Not too many carriers fly a 787 with lie-flats between the two cities though. I'm sure economy will be priced competitively, but then they'll also capture the customer base who want to fly in J, even for a short hop.
This is great! I missed the preannouncement yesterday! ! I love the idea of a short flight from HKG to SGN or BKK…
The Philippines is booming business wise and tourism.
Also large population of Filipinos on California. They also are prosperous and go back to the Philippines at least every couple of years.
The Philippines is a ignored country but it has a population of 100 million with a quickly rising middle class. Plus everyone speaks English.
From what I hear and read elsewhere, DL plans to serve MNL non-stop from LAX and they still have slots.
Adelaide is a massive shock. I genuinely did not think this would happen for another 50 years **at best**
I thought Perth would have happened before, considering the larger and more valuable market, as Perth has lots of high yield energy and resources travel.
Thailand and Vietnam were long rumoured. It's almost unnerving that this has finally happened.
The word "never" shouldn't ever be used in this industry ever again.
While I'd love to see it, Perth is just too far to make it direct to the US. It's about 9,200 miles, which is about 300 more than the ultra-long-haul flights from Perth to London which we already have. Plus, there are already a vast number of domestic flights from here to Sydney and Melbourne.
Connecting in Australia is far less painful than a domestic to international connection in the USA.
It makes one wonder if ADL is paying UA in the same way BNE has
Will UA offer CPU on HKG-BKK/SGN flights this time? I remembered when they UA flew HKG-SGN and HKG-SIN last time they did offer CPU for all premier members even though the HKG-SIN flight was on a widebody international aircraft
Asking the important question.
in other industry news, AA is halting flight attendant hiring. Given that there is a pretty high turnover of FAs, it is notable that UA is adding more cities - esp. SGN and BKK - which increase costs with little additional revenue relative to costs - while competing against Asian carriers that not only have lower costs but can better optimize connections for the intra Asia leg.
Trying to distract us with all these cool new adds that leave Delta in the dust? Seriously?
This is sad, even for you.
nobody is distracting from anything.
The industry environment IS a part of understanding anything airline related today.
Just a week ago, there was a thread in which 500 people were convinced that foreigners wouldn't come to the US and Americans wouldn't be welcome.
Multiple airlines have updated guidance and it is softer than what was expected even a couple months ago.
Now, AA is saying they are freezing FA hiring - which is a pretty...
nobody is distracting from anything.
The industry environment IS a part of understanding anything airline related today.
Just a week ago, there was a thread in which 500 people were convinced that foreigners wouldn't come to the US and Americans wouldn't be welcome.
Multiple airlines have updated guidance and it is softer than what was expected even a couple months ago.
Now, AA is saying they are freezing FA hiring - which is a pretty big step in terms of outlook.
Nobody is distracting from anything. There are people that don't buy the "rah rah" routine from anybody and believe it is valuable to look at all angles.
Your point is a good and legitimate one, but surely you must be aware that it rings a bit hollow coming from someone who's exclusive contribution to the comments section is doing "rah rah" for Delta, right?
you only see "rah rah" because that is the lens through which most people read these types of forums.
I bring accurate industry perspective. The fact that DL happens to be at the top of many global and most US industry metrics is what most people don't want to hear so label as "rah rah"
AA apparently freezes hiring this time of year. It’s not new and they have way less less international and utilize less widebodies.You should not be shocked and will do anything to hate on expansion at United. Nothing new there either
For Delta to break into the Asia market they will have to up their game 100%.
Is anyone convinced that any US carrier has the ability to survive in such a high end environment …. I’m not!
Neither Delta or American sees a need to add dots and lines to a route map.
Delta survives better than United if the purpose of their existence - just as in the US - is to generate the highest margins of the big 3 across the Pacific.
DL will use the A35Ks to add more destinations to Asia but they will do so where they stand the best chance of making the most money.
and...
Neither Delta or American sees a need to add dots and lines to a route map.
Delta survives better than United if the purpose of their existence - just as in the US - is to generate the highest margins of the big 3 across the Pacific.
DL will use the A35Ks to add more destinations to Asia but they will do so where they stand the best chance of making the most money.
and the real showdown in Asia won't be on the west coast to smaller cities in Asia but from NYC and the east coast where the 350 - in either version - is more capable than anything in any US airline's fleet
careful, tim, at this pace your copium supplier is gonna run out!
Correction …. It’s not bleeding Delta, it’s United!
Obviously a bad hair day today.
first, DL's new SLC-ICN flight will probably generate more capacity and profits than all of what UA just announced even though SLC-ICN goes just 3X/weekly later this year.
There is nothing "exciting" about adding another route between two existing cities - but that is where the money comes from.
SFO-MNL probably will generate higher margins than all of the new cities ever will - the way they are being served - but it doesn't...
first, DL's new SLC-ICN flight will probably generate more capacity and profits than all of what UA just announced even though SLC-ICN goes just 3X/weekly later this year.
There is nothing "exciting" about adding another route between two existing cities - but that is where the money comes from.
SFO-MNL probably will generate higher margins than all of the new cities ever will - the way they are being served - but it doesn't get the "rah rah" excitement for the same reason SLC-ICN doesn't for DL.
I wonder if the South Australia State Government had offered incentives/subsidies to UA to operate flights into their city? Also SYD loses their 2nd SFO-SYD daily in favour of the 2nd SFO-MNL.
Interesting growth of the MNL market which had zero UA flights to the mainland a few years ago.
Aside from PH becoming more business friendly and the increase in tourism, I think part of it has to do with the restrictions in China as well as Russian overflight rights. That's probably why you see all these routes especially in Asia opening up.
And while not major compared to the above, but they'll also be adding a second daily from between SFO and MNL.
What a disappointment. A new inferior connecting option to Asia, yawn. If I have to connect if much rather fly an Asian carrier, and prefer not in a city under the thumb of the CCP. The only way I would choose United transpacific is if they were the only nonstop option. The only benefit is they will siphon off some traffic from carriers I actually want to fly on.
Leave it to the dunce to immediately trash the announcement. HKG > SGN/BKK will sell as fifth freedom flights. Some connecting traffic will feed from the USA, but local traffic will also feed.
No thanks. We do not want Americans here in South Australia. As we say in Australia, piss off.
I get the distinct impression you aren't actually Australian. No-one who lives here genuinely labours under the misapprehension that "piss off" is an Australian phrase.
I am an American who has spent about 2 years total in Adelaide this century. I have always been treated great there. There was a rumor there was one anti-American bogan around SA. Greetings, I finally met you.
VN has a nonstop from SFO to SGN, and my understanding is it is hemorrhaging money... so I struggle to imagine that a US carrier (with far higher costs) would be able to make it work. BKK at least has a *A partner in TG. But on the whole, I surmise both are just schedule convenience: the flights to HKG spend a lot of time on the ground, so might as well get some revenue.
@ Jim -- Interestingly, back in the day when UA flew a 747 from HKG to SGN, one of the primary motivations was because the plane had to overnight in HKG, and the economics were better of paying for parking in SGN, and transporting some number of passengers and cargo. Nowadays United has two daily flights to HKG from LAX and SFO, and they all turn pretty quickly, within hours.
So United will actually have...
@ Jim -- Interestingly, back in the day when UA flew a 747 from HKG to SGN, one of the primary motivations was because the plane had to overnight in HKG, and the economics were better of paying for parking in SGN, and transporting some number of passengers and cargo. Nowadays United has two daily flights to HKG from LAX and SFO, and they all turn pretty quickly, within hours.
So United will actually have to adjust its schedule and increase ground time in HKG to make the turns to BKK and SGN work.
My dad worked for VN and was involved in planning VN-US routes (for 20 years, lol). He did mention that VN will lose money on that route for at least the first 6-7 years. Their main plan is to go to LAX. But even for SFO, because of the reduced MTOW A359, it is still being heavily load-limited.
I'm confused, the HKG flights have quite a quick turnaround time in HKG (around 3 hours).
My question is the other one: what happens to the morning departure back East? My guess is that the jet would land in the morning to HKG, do the round-trip run to BKK/SGN and then head back East from HKG in the evening departure. Which makes me think that an extra plane will have to be added for the rotation.
You would have to be as brain dead as Trump to fly United from Hong Kong to Bangkok. When you can choose Cathay, Thai or Emirates.
Wish nothing but failure and misery on American businesses sycophantic to Trump and Elon (eg by installing Starlink)
@ BZ -- While United's soft product will likely be pretty uncompetitive, the hard product is competitive. Cathay Pacific partly flies planes with the regional cradle seat, while Thai Airways also has some A320s scheduled. The Emirates fifth freedom flight is of course by far the best, but the ex-HKG timing isn't ideal for many.
Why do you say that?
Both aren't true. CX flies mostly A330s with lie-flat 1-2-1 and some A359 (also lie-flat). I am a regular on both.
Thai flies 777 and A359 with lie-flat 1-2-1.
Both fly a single A320/A321 on thew route.
I'd go even further. United's hard product realistically can compete with most of these. Both Cathay and Thai haven't properly invested in improving their premium product in some time now; Cathay obviously ahead of the mark compared to Thai, but wouldn't say it's a major improvement. Emirates product is great for what it is, but the route servicing BKK as fifth freedom realistically lacks the benefits you would be receiving on a long haul given...
I'd go even further. United's hard product realistically can compete with most of these. Both Cathay and Thai haven't properly invested in improving their premium product in some time now; Cathay obviously ahead of the mark compared to Thai, but wouldn't say it's a major improvement. Emirates product is great for what it is, but the route servicing BKK as fifth freedom realistically lacks the benefits you would be receiving on a long haul given the BKK-HKG is such a short hop. In my opinion, ANA and Eva are the two most premium products servicing BKK at the moment (in terms of intra-asia routes). Will be interesting to see what the United product on these stopover flights ends up looking like.
Seek help. Seriously.
as for BKK and SGN, it simply means that HKG isn't doing as well as many think. You don't stick a tag behind a flight that is already doing well.
As for Adelaide, we have seen a host of new service to Australia on a seasonal, less than weekly subsidized basis. Is this one of the same thing? Good for UA - just as for AA and DL - if UA can get some of...
as for BKK and SGN, it simply means that HKG isn't doing as well as many think. You don't stick a tag behind a flight that is already doing well.
As for Adelaide, we have seen a host of new service to Australia on a seasonal, less than weekly subsidized basis. Is this one of the same thing? Good for UA - just as for AA and DL - if UA can get some of the subsidies? Even if not, Adelaide is a pretty small market esp. if the world gets all upset about the US and doesn't want to come to the US and mistreats American visitors which is what many convince is going to happen.
long and short is that the net UA is adding a new seasonal less than daily service to Adelaide and a couple tags to boost the underperformance of its flights to HKG.
From the data I've seen, LAX-HKG was a clear underperformer for United Airlines. It's quite clear that the 2nd daily flight was an attempt to improve said performance.
And FYI the Australian subsidies are largely for advertising and marketing the flight, money that UA has to match to receive said subsidy.
The Australian subsidies (varying by state) also covers landing fees and some ground fees for a set term (i.e 12 months). Thus the subsidies are more than just "marketing money", it's also meant to help them get started as well as the marketing money for "inbound tourism" into the respective Australian states.
Actually you do, as parking overnight at HKG is really expensive, that rivals NRT and HND, UA has been having all these 5th freedom tag on out of NRT and HKG for 40 years, date back to 1985 when UA purchased PA's Pacific division, UA869 IAD-SFO-HKG-SGN, UA895 LGA-ORD-HKG-SIN, UA 1 JFK-LAX-HKG-BKK, UA881 IAD-ORD-NRT-ICN, UA801 JFK-NRT-HKG, the only plane that used to overnight at HKG was UA801 NRT-HKG
there isn't an airport on the planet that costs more to park a plane - net of the 2nd landing costs and flight.
UA has flown tags and RTW routings because it has been sexy to do that kind of stuff to show network power.
Given that DL is making 80% of the TPAC profits while flying 50% of the capacity says that UA's TPAC network is not near as profitable as they would...
there isn't an airport on the planet that costs more to park a plane - net of the 2nd landing costs and flight.
UA has flown tags and RTW routings because it has been sexy to do that kind of stuff to show network power.
Given that DL is making 80% of the TPAC profits while flying 50% of the capacity says that UA's TPAC network is not near as profitable as they would like you to believe.
As planet notes above, HKG is not near as strong as many would like to believe. UA flies 4 flights/day from 2 west coast cities. that is a lot of capacity. This move is a way to push more LEISURE passengers over 4 existing flights each way (really 8 RT flights) in order to offset the lower demand esp. in the winter.
Presumably United has a crew base in Hong Kong?
Otherwise the routing for crew on the Hong Kong bases would make for a long trip.
@ Sharon -- United closed its HKG base several years back. So I think it'll be that crews work LAX/SFO-HKG, have a layover, then work HKG-BKK/SGN, then have a layover, and then work HKG-LAX/SFO.
United should reopen a crew base at HKG.
Surely it will be LAXSFO-HKG, layover in HKG, HKG-BKK/SGN-HKG as a turnaround, layover in HKG, and then HKG-LAX/SFO back to base. CX operate HKG-BKK/SGN as a turnaround.