United Airlines has today announced a transpacific expansion. In addition to a new route between San Francisco and Manila, United is also launching a new service between Los Angeles and Hong Kong.
In this post:
United Airlines adds LAX-HKG route as of October 2023
As of October 28, 2023, United Airlines will launch a new daily, year-round flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Hong Kong (HKG). The flight will operate with the following schedule:
UA801 Los Angeles to Hong Kong departing 11:10AM arriving 6:05PM (+1 day)
UA802 Hong Kong to Los Angeles departing 8:05PM arriving 5:45PM
The 7,260-mile flight is blocked at 15hr55min westbound and 12hr40min eastbound. United will use a Boeing 787-9 for the route, featuring 257 seats. This includes 48 business class seats, 21 premium economy seats, 39 extra legroom economy seats, and 149 economy class seats.
This winter, United will operate three daily flights to Hong Kong, as this new service complements United’s two daily flights between San Francisco and Hong Kong. United hasn’t resumed its Newark to Hong Kong route, which was operated pre-pandemic (though is much more challenging with the closure of Russian airspace).
This route is otherwise served by Cathay Pacific, which offers the most service between Hong Kong and United States, though also not as much as pre-pandemic.
My gosh, United Airlines’ network is amazing
The difference in vision in route planning between United and both Delta and (especially) American is just night and day. United will fly three times per day to Hong Kong, while American and Delta have both abandoned Hong Kong.
In Delta’s case, it’s because the airline prioritizes its joint venture with Korean Air, and routing everything through Seoul Incheon. In American’s case, it’s because… well, the carrier seems exclusively focused on flying people between Charlotte, Dallas, and Phoenix, and everywhere in the United States.
Keep in mind that American used to be the only US airline to fly between Los Angeles and Hong Kong, but the airline gave that route up at the beginning of the pandemic, with no indication of it resuming. This comes as American has given up on using Los Angeles as its transpacific hub.
I live in Miami so am usually an American flyer. In fairness to American, the carrier has a good network domestically, and in Latin America, the Caribbean, etc.
But my gosh, isn’t it kind of sad to compare American’s Asia network to United’s Asia network? United obviously has a strategy, to maintain its position as the most global carrier in the United States. American’s strategy has long been that the carrier’s schedule is its product, as the world’s largest airline. But clearly that just applies to domestic destinations.
Bottom line
As of October 2023, United Airlines is launching a new route between Los Angeles and Hong Kong using a Boeing 787. This will be the carrier’s third daily flight to Hong Kong, complementing two daily flights from San Francisco. Meanwhile American and Delta both don’t even bother flying to Hong Kong.
What do you make of United’s new route to Hong Kong?
I can’t believe United is running circles around AA internationally, even in HKG, a market where they don’t have the benefit of having a major alliance partner like AA did. This says just as much about AA and Delta as it does United. United must be very lucky to have people like Patrick Quayle who can plan and maintain such a robust international network for what is one of the largest, most complex airlines in the world.
Hopefully United's addition of flights between LAX and HKG will somehow lower the cost of flying transpacific routes. Prior to the pandemic, United offered extremely competitive prices for flights between Hong Kong and the US. A multi-city flight for HKG-EWR/SFO-HKG cost less than HKD $5K in the summer of 2018. You could barely purchase a one-way ticket with the same amount of money now...
It seems you also have not considered that all three carriers fly to mainland China. I am not sure what United is thinking flying LAX to HKG since there are two daily CX flights that do it and CX is in the oneworld.
Please reopen the United Club at the HK international airport.
Airlines hovering like vultures over Cathay Pacific routes. Cathay enforced a mandatory, sign or be fired permanent 50% pay cut to its pilots at the beginning of COVID. Almost 50% of their Captains resigned. Now that COVIDS over and travel demand has sky rocketed, Cathay are left languishing unable to recruit pilots. It’ll take a decade for them to recover pre Covid routes and capacity. In the mean time the competition, like vultures, are picking up the slack.
I cant believe ey ey is falling to 3rd place after holding the 1st position so strong in LAX for many decades lmao
And also AA used to fly it because it had Cathay connections before. Now with the war and Cathay overflying Russia, AA had to cut all codeshares with Cathay to avoid running into fines and scrutiny, so while Cathay overflies Russia, and even if the economy in HKG does improve, HKG is essentially no longer a Oneworld connecting hub anymore for airlines whose home countries sanctioned and blocked Russia overfly for the time being. So...
And also AA used to fly it because it had Cathay connections before. Now with the war and Cathay overflying Russia, AA had to cut all codeshares with Cathay to avoid running into fines and scrutiny, so while Cathay overflies Russia, and even if the economy in HKG does improve, HKG is essentially no longer a Oneworld connecting hub anymore for airlines whose home countries sanctioned and blocked Russia overfly for the time being. So with no onward connections, no AA. Especially when Cathay flies to every big US city 1-4x a day. @lucky
"Keep in mind that American used to be the only US airline to fly between Los Angeles and Hong Kong, but the airline gave that route up at the beginning of the pandemic, with no indication of it resuming. This comes as American has given up on using Los Angeles as its transpacific hub."
You mean DFW-HKG? @lucky
Wasn’t 801 the old LAXHKG or ORDHKG?
800/801 was JFK-NRT-HKG,
1/2 was LAX-HKG,
895/896 was ORD-HKG, the 2nd ORD-HKG was 828/829,
805/806 were old numbers for SFO-HKG
HKG-LAX apparently never made much money for AA, given the intense competition between LAX and Asia. Where I don't understand AA management is the cancellation of HKG-DFW (and the closure of their HK office), which as far as I can tell always had decent loads, especially upfront. AA was tapping into the huge market of OneWorld loyalists in HK looking for all the connections available via DFW.
I guess the reason is that that...
HKG-LAX apparently never made much money for AA, given the intense competition between LAX and Asia. Where I don't understand AA management is the cancellation of HKG-DFW (and the closure of their HK office), which as far as I can tell always had decent loads, especially upfront. AA was tapping into the huge market of OneWorld loyalists in HK looking for all the connections available via DFW.
I guess the reason is that that route required 3 aircraft to operate (77W at the time), which AA may have better uses for now.
This is actually a resumption of an old route! UA used to fly LAX-HKG 10+ years ago before Cathay went 3x and then 4x (briefly) daily.
Wen American ?
Glad to have another flight to HKG.
Will AA ever restore DFW-HKG?
AA just makes no sense to me. Wouldn't flights to Hong Kong make sense so they can utilize CP for Asian connections?
"AA just makes no sense to me." Agreed.
"Wouldn't flights to Hong Kong make sense so they can utilize CP for Asian connections?" AA seems to prefer routing its connections through Tokyo and on JAL. At least of late.
AA and JL have an immunized joint venture where they can share revenues, jointly schedule, and co-market to any extent that they'd like.
AA and CX are just OneWorld members, which is little more than glorified codeshare marketing.
When given a realistic choice, AA will always prefer placing customers on JL over CX.
AA also owns a stake in China Southern, so would probably prefer routing traffic on CZ opposed to CX.
In a perfect world, CX should move to Star to join Air China, and China Southern and Singapore move to OW to fill the gap.
For profit companies don't exist to put lines on route maps but to make money.
Let's see how these and its other adds work out but it will be interesting to see what UA can do in LAX-HKG that AA couldn't do esp. when competing against CX.
UA has wanted to add MNL but they will be competing against a just-reorganized PR that has A350Ks on order that will give it one of...
For profit companies don't exist to put lines on route maps but to make money.
Let's see how these and its other adds work out but it will be interesting to see what UA can do in LAX-HKG that AA couldn't do esp. when competing against CX.
UA has wanted to add MNL but they will be competing against a just-reorganized PR that has A350Ks on order that will give it one of the lowest seat costs across the Pacific.
Let's not forget that UA lost money flying the Pacific for at least 3 years before covid even though they were the largest carrier.
Maybe they will work and maybe they won't but I will be more interested in seeing how well UAL's profits which are to be announced tomorrow after market close compare w/ DAL's (already announced) and AAL's which will come Thursday morning.
Tim, I gotta give you credit, your posts have been much more measured and reasonable, and thus more interesting, as of late. It allows me to digest, rather than reject, when you have interesting information to convey.
I don't share your profit-is-all-that-matters orientation, since I'm a consumer and not an airline manager nor investor, but I can accept that as a normal divergence of viewpoint, as different people are going to see things differently.
I respect that this and most other travel sites are consumer related but airline history is long enough to see that airlines that don't financially succeed don't last.
UA is very profitable right now based on their own history but other airlines not only are more profitable but UA is spending money at a much faster clip than any other airline in the world.
There are plenty of examples where that level of...
I respect that this and most other travel sites are consumer related but airline history is long enough to see that airlines that don't financially succeed don't last.
UA is very profitable right now based on their own history but other airlines not only are more profitable but UA is spending money at a much faster clip than any other airline in the world.
There are plenty of examples where that level of aggressive spending hasn't worked out near as well as expected.
I don't share your profit-is-all-that-matters orientation, since I'm a consumer and not an airline manager nor investor, but I can accept that as a normal divergence of viewpoint, as different people are going to see things differently.
Which makes absolutely no sense to say, in the context of what he wrote-- as indeed, private operators are going to pursue routings that maximize revenue and potential profit to a network.
That's in indisputable fact, regardless...
I don't share your profit-is-all-that-matters orientation, since I'm a consumer and not an airline manager nor investor, but I can accept that as a normal divergence of viewpoint, as different people are going to see things differently.
Which makes absolutely no sense to say, in the context of what he wrote-- as indeed, private operators are going to pursue routings that maximize revenue and potential profit to a network.
That's in indisputable fact, regardless of one's "viewpoint," lol.
I don't think the LAX-HKG route will succeed long term, and it is an interim measure to put a plane on a route that would otherwise fly from EWR or ORD but cannot right now due to Russia overfly restrictions. The same likely goes for the SFO-MNL route, which will be heavy on VFR, but you keep insisting that UA loses money on TPAC but that feels doubtful given the ever increasing, though evolving network...
I don't think the LAX-HKG route will succeed long term, and it is an interim measure to put a plane on a route that would otherwise fly from EWR or ORD but cannot right now due to Russia overfly restrictions. The same likely goes for the SFO-MNL route, which will be heavy on VFR, but you keep insisting that UA loses money on TPAC but that feels doubtful given the ever increasing, though evolving network they have to not just Asia but to Australia, New Zealand, and India, even with the forced need to optimize there too. Am not a believer in United and still view it as an airline with a lot of promise but too many logistical issues to win my loyalty, but they do have a strong amount of corporate business to the region that AA never had, so drawing comparisons to AA's LAX-HKG route isn't really logical here. It does seem like your beloved Delta doesn't know what to do with Asia other than to lean on partners and hope for the best. It seems to be struggling hard in Tokyo, even with the best airport set up, where UA and AA don't seem to be, regardless of their NH and JL ties.
first, I said United LOST money flying the Pacific, specifically 2017-2019, 3 of the best years the industry has seen when they were the largest airline across the Pacific. Although Delta lost money over the Pacific shortly after the NW merger, it was making money as a smaller transpac airline. In any industry, if the largest company can't make money but smaller ones can, you have to legitimately ask what is wrong.
And profitability...
first, I said United LOST money flying the Pacific, specifically 2017-2019, 3 of the best years the industry has seen when they were the largest airline across the Pacific. Although Delta lost money over the Pacific shortly after the NW merger, it was making money as a smaller transpac airline. In any industry, if the largest company can't make money but smaller ones can, you have to legitimately ask what is wrong.
And profitability by global region data is filed by the airlines w/ the data and adds up to the same numbers filed with the SEC for overall profitability. The DOT is not fudging anything.
AA flew many routes over the Pacific that I suspected (and said so) probably didn't make money, they didn't make money at the Pacific global region level based on DOT data, and eventually their execs admitted it and started cutting Pacific flying.
And, again, I get the fascination w/ lines on maps and new routes but anyone w/ any knowledge of the industry has to be a little skeptical of aggressive expansion.
also
- UA earns less total revenue than AA or DL so a big international route system isn't the only way to make money.
- DL is also expanding in the S. Pacific.
- UA wants to aggressively expand in the domestic market - where AA, DL and WN all are much larger. Somehow I doubt that UA's expansion will go quite as smooth as they think
- AA and DL are in very good financial shape and both are paying down debt while UA is taking it on.
- DL already has dozens of new widebody aircraft on order that will be used for expansion and a further order expected. If it makes sense financially to expand, other airlines will do so.
UAs 2017-2019 losses are a bit of a cherry pick don’t you think? :)
Chinese carriers were dumping capacity and everyone was over exposed on china.
Aviation is a marathon, not a cherry farm, Gabe. The reason why Tim used 2017-2019 is because pre-COVID performance is the most important indicator for current performance.
Who has the largest and most profitable system in the Atlantic? Asia? Africa and Middle East? Cargo? South Pacific?
It’s Delta, delta, delta, oi, oi, oi.
The second half of last year showed it, first quarter showed, second quarter showed it.
UA launching Manila is FOLLOWING DL...
Aviation is a marathon, not a cherry farm, Gabe. The reason why Tim used 2017-2019 is because pre-COVID performance is the most important indicator for current performance.
Who has the largest and most profitable system in the Atlantic? Asia? Africa and Middle East? Cargo? South Pacific?
It’s Delta, delta, delta, oi, oi, oi.
The second half of last year showed it, first quarter showed, second quarter showed it.
UA launching Manila is FOLLOWING DL who already serves the route via ICN on an A330neo. DL also previously served MNL from NRT and NGO. Speaking of NGO, DL serves this city from DTW. No other US carrier serves Japan outside of Tokyo. DL is GROWING in the Pacific such as their recent PDX-ICN announcement. In the Atlantic, DL is EXPANDING GVA from seasonal to LESS seasonal. The recent A35K announcement at the Paris Air Show has enabled unmeasurable growth at DL forcing UA to launch these new routes to compete with the largest international US carrier.
Well at the moment, PR are really short on aircraft to a point where they're cancelling flights due to the lack of spare aircraft when one goes tech, so it'll be a while before they'll have a stable schedule especially with their long-haul schedule.
I think you may give too much credit for "vision"/"strategy" and not enough for luck of hubs. United's hubs are in big, internationally-oriented cities, so United has a large loyal customer base that would use these sort of routes. Delta and American have significantly more hub presence in smaller cities which are well-suited to connect people around the US but are just not as strong for supporting big international routes. (Even with Delta having a...
I think you may give too much credit for "vision"/"strategy" and not enough for luck of hubs. United's hubs are in big, internationally-oriented cities, so United has a large loyal customer base that would use these sort of routes. Delta and American have significantly more hub presence in smaller cities which are well-suited to connect people around the US but are just not as strong for supporting big international routes. (Even with Delta having a sizeable presence in New York, its JFK operation is much smaller than United's at Newark, making it hard to support some more adventurous routes there, both due to a smaller amount of connecting traffic to help fill flights and due to a lack of available slots to experiment with.)
Even with Delta having a sizeable presence in New York, its JFK operation is much smaller than United's at Newark, making it hard to support some more adventurous routes there
The disparity is over-exaggerated. UA has a lot more narrowbodies (and thus significantly more domestic and regional flow) at EWR versus DL at JFK...
...but in terms of widebodies, UA has a grand total of 9 more per day than DL (51 vs 42). UA's...
Even with Delta having a sizeable presence in New York, its JFK operation is much smaller than United's at Newark, making it hard to support some more adventurous routes there
The disparity is over-exaggerated. UA has a lot more narrowbodies (and thus significantly more domestic and regional flow) at EWR versus DL at JFK...
...but in terms of widebodies, UA has a grand total of 9 more per day than DL (51 vs 42). UA's aircraft are higher gauge, so there's more passengers, but that doesn't really do much for destinations, which is the crux of what you were saying above.
What helps bolster UA's numbers is that the majority of their 19 daily 752 departures are transoceanic, whereas none of DL's 13 daily 752s from JFK are. But that's a choice, not a hub restriction.
Also keep in mind that quite a few of those widebody departures are domestic (California, Hawaii, etc).
and to add, including regional carriers, Delta is flying about 15% more flights from all 3 airports in NYC combined than United is while UA has 90% of its NYC operations at EWR and has not handled all of the weather problems of late near as well as DL has with its split hub operation. It doesn't matter how much you schedule if you can't reliably operate it.
Given the choice, I think anyone paying for their seat is going to pick Oneworld member Cathay over AA and UA anyway. Why would aa waste a plane on it? Cathay is part of the aa network.
Agreed on the logic for AA and that anyone paying themselves would choose Cathay. If the route succeeds I imagine it will largely be based on the strength of United's corporate contracts and ability to force corporate travelers to fly UA based on travel policy and not personal choice.
It's not just that United has a gift on route planning but that they have a strong corporate contract roster that can support many of these routes.
+1 on this. Have an acquaintance who works for a big financial company in NYC. He flies constantly around the world but almost always United because of the corporate contract.
it is true that UA does very well w/ corporate contracts but DL actually has higher corporate contract volume than any other carrier.
AA and DL also generate more revenue than UA and also have much larger domestic systems. UA's plan is to aggressively expand its domestic system in part to help gain some of the credit card revenue for which it gets the least amount of the big 3; credit card partnerships have...
it is true that UA does very well w/ corporate contracts but DL actually has higher corporate contract volume than any other carrier.
AA and DL also generate more revenue than UA and also have much larger domestic systems. UA's plan is to aggressively expand its domestic system in part to help gain some of the credit card revenue for which it gets the least amount of the big 3; credit card partnerships have much less value in international markets than in domestic markets and AA and DL both are much larger in many more domestic markets than UA.
In terms of profitability, UA falls behind DL but ahead of AA - but AA is quickly moving forward as it retires debt and focuses on profitable rather than strategic flying.
And DL has significant international expansion capability coming; part of the reason why UA is moving now is because they know what DL will be capable of adding in the next 3 years and even beyond w/ another widebody order.
Finally, let's not forget that UA has the oldest fleet including the least efficient widebody fleet not only of the big 3 but also among major carriers around the world. They can use all of those 787s for expansion but they will be at a growing cost disadvantage to airlines that are replacing older aircraft and still growing. If they retired every 777-200/ER and 767-300ER, they would use up their entire 787 order book.
Completely agree. AA still gets to sell AA ticket stock from wherever-LAX-HKG, and instead can dedicate the plane resources to inside the country (in Ben's example). Sounds like a decent strategy to me instead of having to compete on all fronts.
@Ben - maybe you can do a post that explains your understanding of each of the Big 3's strategy? I don't fully understand your criticism of AA's lack of vision and would love to know more.
In fairness to Ben, I have to imagine a title of “LAX to HKG” or “SFO to MNL” generates more clicks and traffic (to say nothing of more interesting trip reviews) to his business model than “New nonstop from DCA to Wichita” or “AA starts nonstop MIA-SMF” so I’d assume he’s naturally more interested/Wowed in airlines with big international networks like United where route news makes a splash
It should be stated that AA and CX, despite both being members of OneWorld, are still competitors. They do not (and cannot) have an anti-trust immune joint venture, and as such do not share operating revenues, costs, nor can they jointly schedule. Any co-marketing they do has to be within a narrow range.
As such, AA has very little incentive to place anyone on CX except in a situation where it's unrealistic to place them...
It should be stated that AA and CX, despite both being members of OneWorld, are still competitors. They do not (and cannot) have an anti-trust immune joint venture, and as such do not share operating revenues, costs, nor can they jointly schedule. Any co-marketing they do has to be within a narrow range.
As such, AA has very little incentive to place anyone on CX except in a situation where it's unrealistic to place them on JL (with whom AA *does* have an immunized J/V, and as such would make more money).
True but AA cares most about AAdvantage revenue at this point and keeping customers within that AAdvantage world. Of course JL will be preferred but if we’re talking about competing against nonstops on UA to HKG and to SE Asia where JL is much weaker than CX, AA is still more than willing to sell corporate contracts with the Cx network as a compelling sales component.
And while JL and CX do compete for some...
True but AA cares most about AAdvantage revenue at this point and keeping customers within that AAdvantage world. Of course JL will be preferred but if we’re talking about competing against nonstops on UA to HKG and to SE Asia where JL is much weaker than CX, AA is still more than willing to sell corporate contracts with the Cx network as a compelling sales component.
And while JL and CX do compete for some AA traffic, HNd and HKG are about the same distance as MAD from HEL or ORD from LAX. Those hubs compete…? Sure but not like lax and Sfo or ord and dtw would for similar flows.
HKG and hnd can perform rather unique missions for aa even if JL is the preferred JV partner. Asia is a big place so lumping Tokyo and Hong Kong doesn’t make a lot of sense when CX is a very valuable member of Oneworld. I don’t think anyone on here would be comparing lax and ord the same the way some do between HND and HKG yet FAR more people live between HNd and HKg than LA and Chicago
And while JL and CX do compete for some AA traffic, HNd and HKG are about the same distance as MAD from HEL or ORD from LAX. Those hubs compete…?
Apples and oranges.
HEL/MAD have very distinct strengths and flows, one of which is along ethnic VFR/biz lines, and the other nothing of the sort.
HKG/TYO on the other hand, don't have those differences. Tokyo's international strengths for inbound N.Am traffic are Korea, Greater China,...
And while JL and CX do compete for some AA traffic, HNd and HKG are about the same distance as MAD from HEL or ORD from LAX. Those hubs compete…?
Apples and oranges.
HEL/MAD have very distinct strengths and flows, one of which is along ethnic VFR/biz lines, and the other nothing of the sort.
HKG/TYO on the other hand, don't have those differences. Tokyo's international strengths for inbound N.Am traffic are Korea, Greater China, and SE Asia. Hong Kongs? (the rest of) Greater China, SE Asia, and Indian Ocean.
They have far more common overlap.
TYO strengths are Japan, Korea, and major centers in eastern China. None of those are CX strengths for a North American traveler. If you look at JL’s SE Asia network, it’s quite small compared to CX.
CX’s strength for a North American traveler is SE Asia, eastern India and parts of southern and interior china.
It’s ok to admit that hubs 1800 miles apart with billions of people between them (far more than...
TYO strengths are Japan, Korea, and major centers in eastern China. None of those are CX strengths for a North American traveler. If you look at JL’s SE Asia network, it’s quite small compared to CX.
CX’s strength for a North American traveler is SE Asia, eastern India and parts of southern and interior china.
It’s ok to admit that hubs 1800 miles apart with billions of people between them (far more than mad and HeL) and enormous gdp in their respective areas can be relatively distinct from one another with unique positions within Oneworld.
Of course both hubs can connect Americans to some common places, but the overlap really isn’t that great if you look instead of assume.
It’s ok to admit that hubs 1800 miles apart with billions of people between them (far more than mad and HeL) and enormous gdp in their respective areas can be relatively distinct from one another with unique positions within Oneworld.
Strawman much? No one is making the case for lack of distinction, just that the distinction in this case isn't sufficient to override the significantly higher financial benefit of choosing one over another, in the...
It’s ok to admit that hubs 1800 miles apart with billions of people between them (far more than mad and HeL) and enormous gdp in their respective areas can be relatively distinct from one another with unique positions within Oneworld.
Strawman much? No one is making the case for lack of distinction, just that the distinction in this case isn't sufficient to override the significantly higher financial benefit of choosing one over another, in the majority of cases.
If you look at JL’s SE Asia network, it’s quite small compared to CX
Not to the majority of destinations inbound N.Am traffic purchased through AA would be headed. Let's not lose sight of context.
but the overlap really isn’t that great if you look instead of assume.
All said while you blatantly assume (bravo), based on your own perception of geography versus how an airline can+will choose to flow traffic .
Geographic distances are real, not perceived, As are unique and valuable destinations served by CX vs JL in SE Asia, the interior of China, and India.
Enjoy your morning
CX does have better service and amenities all around, but they were typically hundreds of dollars more expensive than AA. For those of us who aren't made of money, a US carrier will do as long as we get there in 1 piece. If AA or UA keeps their prices lower than CX they will get business. As for profitability, that's another question in and of itself.
United used to have 3-4x daily flight with 777s. EWR/SFO (2x)/ORD. They have a much larger client/customer base for a much longer time at and via HKG than AA or DL. LAX-HKG feels more of a resumption than exploration - given the Russian air space.
Ancient history -- UA flew this non-stop route in the 90's. I flew it from the old KaiTak airport!
Don't forget Rush Hour!
Not just the '90s, UA flew LAX-HKG until 2007.