After an over four year hiatus, United Airlines is resuming service between Los Angeles (LAX) and Shanghai (PVG). This also makes United the only US carrier to fly nonstop between Los Angeles and Mainland China.
In this post:
United resumes LAX to PVG flights with 787
As of August 29, 2024, United Airlines has resumed flights between Los Angeles and Shanghai. Specifically, the route operates with the following schedule:
UA198 Los Angeles to Shanghai departing 12:55PM arriving 5:45PM (+1 day)
UA199 Shanghai to Los Angeles departing 8:10PM arriving 4:55PM
The 6,485-mile flight is operated by a Boeing 787-9, and is blocked at 13hr50min westbound and 11hr45min eastbound. The service is initially operating 4x weekly, though as of the winter schedule (starting in late October 2024), it should increase to daily.
For context on this route resumption:
- The only other carrier flying this route nonstop is China Eastern, and the airline has a daily service with a Boeing 777-300ER
- United otherwise flies to Shanghai out of San Francisco (SFO)
- American and Delta also used to operate this route; American cut this service as part of its general reduction of long haul service out of Los Angeles, while Delta recently axed plans to resume this route
You would think there would be a lot of demand for a Los Angeles to Shanghai route, but it’s not as easy as it sounds, on both sides of the Pacific. For one, China demand just hasn’t recovered post-pandemic, and service continues to be a small fraction of what it once was, due to China’s weakening economy, plus the general hostility between the United States and China.
Furthermore, Los Angeles is a surprisingly tough long haul gateway. Each of the “big three” US carriers has at one point or another tried a big long haul push out of the airport, but hasn’t had much luck. It’s just a very competitive market, and it’s hard for any one airline to grow a market dominant position, both due to the economics, and due to the challenges with getting gate space.
United’s network at LAX is fairly impressive
Los Angeles is a market where all of the “big three” US carriers have a significant network, yet no airline is really the leader. We’ve seen all three US carriers try their hand at expanding service there, with limited success. However, as we look at how things have evolved, United is definitely pulling ahead at the airport when it comes to the number of long haul international destinations.
United’s long haul international destinations out of Los Angeles include Hong Kong (HKG), London (LHR), Melbourne (MEL), Shanghai (PVG), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND & NRT), all on a year-round basis. United has also been flying from Los Angeles to Auckland (AKL) and Brisbane (BNE), on a seasonal basis, though those routes are being discontinued.
How does this compare to other airlines?
- American’s long haul international destinations out of Los Angeles including London (LHR), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND), on a year-round basis, as well as Auckland (AKL) on a seasonal basis
- Delta’s long haul international destinations out of Los Angeles include Paris (CDG), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND), on a year-round basis, as well as Auckland (AKL), Brisbane (BNE), and Tahiti (PPT), on a seasonal basis
I’m curious to see which direction capacity moves for all three carriers in Los Angeles. They always try something new, the question is just for how long it lasts…
Bottom line
United Airlines has resumed its route between Los Angeles and Shanghai, after a suspension of over four years. With this, United is the only US airline to fly from Southern California to Mainland China. This is a route that all of the “big three” US carriers operated pre-pandemic, so it’s nice to see at least one airline resume this route.
What do you make of United resuming its Los Angeles to Shanghai service?
The demand is still there. Flights continue to be full between the US and China and prices have not come down much, not near what it used to be pre-pandemic. Delta does operate via China Eastern. Los Angeles is served by several airlines from other Chinese cities too, so I think this is a factor, as well.
since Ben likes page clicks and this article has dramatically lagged the DL article in page clicks, I will copy part of the comment I made below
scuttlebutt is that UA is working on a deal for a dozen or so used 777-300ERs to take the place of the 787s which Boeing can't deliver - and also because they realize that the 777-200 fleet is getting very long in the tooth.
DL will receive 2...
since Ben likes page clicks and this article has dramatically lagged the DL article in page clicks, I will copy part of the comment I made below
scuttlebutt is that UA is working on a deal for a dozen or so used 777-300ERs to take the place of the 787s which Boeing can't deliver - and also because they realize that the 777-200 fleet is getting very long in the tooth.
DL will receive 2 dozen new Airbus widebodies in 2024 and 2025 and then the A350-1000s start arriving and then the 20 widebody options which are likely to include at least some additional A350-1000s.
In other words, DL has an enormous amount of longhaul widebody capacity coming and you and anyone else is sorely mistaken if you think DL will be using those aircraft to predominantly fly to AMS and CDG.
add on to aircraft, UA made enormous strategic errors in passing on the A350 and not ordering a new generation large widebody. They put their confidence in Boeing that can't deliver.
UA will use 260 seat 787s or fuel consuming 777s and will have to pull even more seats off of the 787-9 in order to fly routes that DL can easily fly with A350-900s and -1000s with dozens more seats per flight.
UA like AA bet on Tokyo as a connecting hub and the split Tokyo airport hubs has destroyed Tokyo's role as an economically viable connecting hub to Asia.
Meanwhile, KE says it will receive a decision about its merger with Asiana from the US DOJ which will unlock much more growth not just for KE but also for DL. With China and HKG far behind what they used to be, ICN is THE leading transpacific hub in NE Asia and that position will only grow stronger.
and most of all, they mistook DL's measured Pacific restructuring as a lack of interest in the region.
UA was wrong on every count. DL is growing the Pacific and will keep doing it much more profitably and with much more capable aircraft to and from better hubs that can fly from all of the US to all of Asia.
Do you suppose that UA is seeing DL getting closer and closer across the Pacific and is now doing anything possible to hold onto UA's Pacific position - and will have messed up configurations just like DL has with the ex-Latam A350-900s - which will be corrected this winter - but will be acquiring the most fuel INEFFICIENT aircraft in the US carrier passenger fleet with the 777-300ER?
the Pacific will be very interesting over the next few years.
LAX-PVG will be the least of the stories that are told about AA, DL and UA
Remember when Delta said they were going to fly LAX-PVG and then pulled out? Pepperidge Farms remembers
and you can't seem to accept that Delta instead decided to fly DTW-PVG on a daily basis giving them the only US carrier service to China east of the Mississippi.
We also remember that UA used to fly to PEK, PVG and HKG and from ORD to some or all of those same cities, IAD to PEK etc and none of that exists any more.
UA's network to E. Asia other than to Tokyo is...
and you can't seem to accept that Delta instead decided to fly DTW-PVG on a daily basis giving them the only US carrier service to China east of the Mississippi.
We also remember that UA used to fly to PEK, PVG and HKG and from ORD to some or all of those same cities, IAD to PEK etc and none of that exists any more.
UA's network to E. Asia other than to Tokyo is entirely from the west coast
We not only remember the past but we are smart enough to know what is happening TODAY.
My only trip from LAX to Shanghai was part of a cheap business class ticket to Phuket, on China Eastern, around 5 years ago. We coupled that with a Malaysian Airlines round trip from Phuket to Melbourne for Christmas. For a while we were looking at Chinese carriers to get us to Australia cheaply in business class, but those opportunities haven't happened post-pandemic, unfortunately. China Eastern's service was great while in the air. Everything else,...
My only trip from LAX to Shanghai was part of a cheap business class ticket to Phuket, on China Eastern, around 5 years ago. We coupled that with a Malaysian Airlines round trip from Phuket to Melbourne for Christmas. For a while we were looking at Chinese carriers to get us to Australia cheaply in business class, but those opportunities haven't happened post-pandemic, unfortunately. China Eastern's service was great while in the air. Everything else, not so much... a bit wacky. Managed an unplanned 24-hour tour of Shanghai as a result.
I think there is absolutely the demand for more flights on this route. China Eastern has been consistently commanding load factors at or above 90% since it restarted LAX-PVG.
Given China’s equivalent of Fly America Act (Air China > other state airlines > private airlines > non-mainland airlines) and shrinking China demand from US side, I guess UA’s position would be different. I’ve heard of poor load factor from UA. International students demand is very seasonal, so I would question the load factor for late September to early December.
United is smart to add more connectivity to APAC. NRT/HND is constantly at capacity and HKG barely relieved some of that.
It is equally worth noting when talking about the size of UA at LAX that it is not repeating the same disastrous capacity additions that it flew in the 2023-24 season which led to DL making more money in the 4th quarter of 2023 and 1st quarter of 2024 than UA across the Pacific.
An accurate discussion of UA out of LAX would note the routes it is NOT flying this year as well as what it has added.
An accurate discussion of the situation would also include what else the airlines offer on both ends of the route.
AA does not have much else from the west coast.
DL has a relatively small and less profitable hub in SEA.
UA has a TPAC powerhouse with multiple international banks in SFO, making LAX a "nice to have" but not as strategically important as it is for AA and DL.
Additionally, UA has...
An accurate discussion of the situation would also include what else the airlines offer on both ends of the route.
AA does not have much else from the west coast.
DL has a relatively small and less profitable hub in SEA.
UA has a TPAC powerhouse with multiple international banks in SFO, making LAX a "nice to have" but not as strategically important as it is for AA and DL.
Additionally, UA has shown they're not afraid to draw down unprofitable flying, strengthening the remaining flights.
Mark,
feel free to post actual facts and not a.net style opinions that are devoid of facts.
No US airline reports profitability by hub or route but they do report it by global region.
As much as some want to argue that DL's operation at SEA is not profitable, their execs have said that all of their hubs are profitable although some hubs are clearly more profitable.
Given that DL makes more money...
Mark,
feel free to post actual facts and not a.net style opinions that are devoid of facts.
No US airline reports profitability by hub or route but they do report it by global region.
As much as some want to argue that DL's operation at SEA is not profitable, their execs have said that all of their hubs are profitable although some hubs are clearly more profitable.
Given that DL makes more money not only on a system basis but also across the Atlantic than either AA or UA and more per ASM than UA on the Pacific, then DL clearly makes enough money to offset whatever losses some may think it has in certain hubs.
If DL can manage to make so much money from some hubs to offset losses at other hubs, why can't AA and UA make so much money in their hubs and where does AA and UA lose money because they clearly do not make near as much money as DL on a system basis so they cannot make as much as DL does in every hub.
AA's Pacific network is at Tokyo where it plays a small role as part of the JL JV, flies to each of PVG and ICN from DFW and that is their E. Asia route network. and they still lost $180 million flying the Pacific in 2023 which is half of what UA and DL made.
despite what yolo and justin think below, DL is the only US carrier that flies to anything other than Tokyo from the eastern US. DL has a daily nonstop flight to PVG from DTW and 2 daily flights from ATL to ICN on its own metal (one more on KE) and one from DTW to ICN.
DTW has service to 3 cities in E. Asia, the most of any carrier from the eastern US.
DL's ATL and DTW to ICN flights are coordinated in time to hit multiple KE banks at ICN in addition to KE's own nonstops from JFK, BOS and IAD so that DL/KE carry by far the largest amount of traffic by US carriers or their JV partners from the Eastern US to East Asia.
UA has decided to focus its Pacific on the west coast and no longer flies from EWR or ORD to China or anywhere else outside of Japan.
DL more than makes up for its smaller size than UA over the Pacific by having a size advantage in the eastern US where DL is stronger across its entire network than UA.
And as DL gets more new A350s, the chances are very high that DL will not only add more routes from the Eastern US to Asia - some of which UA cannot fly with 787s unless they reduce the number of seats to economically unviable levels - as well as add larger planes including the A350-1000.
UA has no new generation widebody ultra long range capable aircraft on order so the gap between DL and UA in the eastern US to Asia will only grow. UA will keep trying to add flights from the west coast to Asia but DL can and will do that from SEA and LAX with the A330NEO and A350 and will close the gap over the Pacific on both sides of the country between DL and UA.
AA will sit on the sidelines.
SEA is not unprofitable, based on their load factors, doubling up on AMS in the last year, they strong international performance, but weak domestic. LAX/SEA are weak links, but necessary to sustain the whole system.
However, SEA-LHR is now the weakest link in the whole Delta system. Which is why they moved 4x weekly frequencies to MCO for the winter.
Delta has a lot of work to do to defend its position though with AS' HA acquisition on the horizon.
again, half of that is conjecture, not facts or data that you can cite.
And it still comes down to that, even if SEA is one of DL's weaker hubs, it is growing domestically and internationally - new TPE and DFW routes among others - and neither AA or UA have been able to open new routes in other carrier backyards as DL did in both BOS and SEA.
If DL is making so much...
again, half of that is conjecture, not facts or data that you can cite.
And it still comes down to that, even if SEA is one of DL's weaker hubs, it is growing domestically and internationally - new TPE and DFW routes among others - and neither AA or UA have been able to open new routes in other carrier backyards as DL did in both BOS and SEA.
If DL is making so much money elsewhere that it can afford to take a hit on SEA-LHR - if that is the weakest route they operate - and still end up as the most profitable US airline, then the question is why no other airline can do what DL has been doing for years in building new hubs.
And AS' first job is to stop the losses at HA. Any fantasies of AS growth will quickly fall apart if they don't stop the bleeding at HA.
How do you accuse others of conjecture, but then come up with stuff like:
"LAX with the A330NEO and A350 and will close the gap over the Pacific on both sides of the country between DL and UA."
What gap are they going to close?
Not destinations, as they've shown zero intention of reentering major markets like Hong Kong and Singapore.
Not mainland China, after United just restarted on a route Delta's chickened out twice on just this year.
Immortal,
you might want to quote the actual sentence instead of fragments and it will make sense.
Delta is going to regrow its Pacific network and it will do it from LAX and SEA.
It will use A350s with a few A330NEOS thrown in but the growth will almost entirely be on A350s.
You are free to call it conjecture but DL's TPAC growth is coming.
You and others simply didn't bother...
Immortal,
you might want to quote the actual sentence instead of fragments and it will make sense.
Delta is going to regrow its Pacific network and it will do it from LAX and SEA.
It will use A350s with a few A330NEOS thrown in but the growth will almost entirely be on A350s.
You are free to call it conjecture but DL's TPAC growth is coming.
You and others simply didn't bother to read and understand facts including that the Japanese government's change regarding HND and the impact it had on DL's NRT hub, DL's decision to retire the 777 and the time it has taken for Airbus to get the A350-900 up to the same range and beyond that the 777LR used to have, and DL's decision to delay widebody aircraft deliveries until 2024 and beyond based on DL's belief about when international markets would stabilize.
All of those pieces are coming together and DL will receive 2 dozen new Airbus widebodies in 2024 and 2025 and then the A350-1000s start arriving and then the 20 widebody options which are likely to include at least some additional A350-1000s.
In other words, DL has an enormous amount of longhaul widebody capacity coming and you and anyone else is sorely mistaken if you think DL will be using those aircraft to predominantly fly to AMS and CDG.
btw, scuttlebutt is that UA is working on a deal for a dozen or so used 777-300ERs to take the place of the 787s which Boeing can't deliver - and also because they realize that the 777-200 fleet is getting very long in the tooth.
Do you suppose that UA is seeing DL gaining across the Pacific and is now doing anything possible to hold onto UA's Pacific position - and will have messed up configurations just like DL has with the ex-Latam A350-900s but will be acquiring the most fuel INEFFICIENT aircraft in the US carrier passenger fleet with the 777-300ER?
UA makes half of what DL does across the Pacific and Atlantic on an ASM basis. As DL retires 767s and takes on more new A330s and A350s, the gap will only widen.
UA's hope of closing the gap in profitability is also closing.
UA made enormous strategic errors in passing on the A350 and not ordering a new generation large widebody. They put their confidence in Boeing that can't deliver.
and most of all, they mistook DL's measured Pacific restructuring as a lack of interest in the region.
UA was wrong on every count. DL is growing the Pacific and will keep doing it much more profitably and with much more capable aircraft that can fly from all of the US to all of Asia.
UA won't be able to say that for at least another 5 years and maybe it will be much longer than then.
Wing-twisted 280tonne A359s have been available for more than six years. They could easily hit anything in Asia from the US west coast in a typical configuration + cargo, and their availability pre-dates the Delta 777s' retirement.
The only places Delta needed...
Wing-twisted 280tonne A359s have been available for more than six years. They could easily hit anything in Asia from the US west coast in a typical configuration + cargo, and their availability pre-dates the Delta 777s' retirement.
The only places Delta needed the A350s to match, or really even approach, the 772LRs' capabilities was the westbound JNB-ATL, or a potential resumption of ATL-BOM; neither of which have anything to do with their seeming trepidation of returning to China from Los Angeles, in the face of UA's competition.
concorde,
and Delta retired 10 777LRs and had 6 280 tonne A350s.
and the 280 tonne A350s have not been able to reliably carry the 306 passengers on all of the flights DL has used them on including ATL-ICN and LAX-SYD with a reasonable cargo payload.
That is why DL is configuring its new 283 tonne aircraft with just 275 seats; they could easily put more seats on even by adding 8...
concorde,
and Delta retired 10 777LRs and had 6 280 tonne A350s.
and the 280 tonne A350s have not been able to reliably carry the 306 passengers on all of the flights DL has used them on including ATL-ICN and LAX-SYD with a reasonable cargo payload.
That is why DL is configuring its new 283 tonne aircraft with just 275 seats; they could easily put more seats on even by adding 8 Delta One seats and taking off 8 Premium Select seats. They want an aircraft that can easily do 18 hour flights with a full passenger payload.
Although they haven't announced the configuration for the A350-1000s, they will clearly make sure that performance is not hindered.
and specific to the Pacific, DL is already doing routes from the eastern US to Asia that AA and UA simply cannot do with the 787-9 even with higher gross weight. If UA could fly EWR-BOM they would be. If UA could fly LAX-SIN, they would be. UA dropped ORD-DEL because the 787 can't operate the flight with a viable payload.
The A350 is simply a far more capable aircraft than the 787 and UA has made the poor decision to keep putting off the 787 and also not acquire a new generation large capacity very to ultra long range capable aircraft. that UA decision will be part of why DL will make significant gains across the Pacific and to India that UA cannot match
Says who? Not the range-payload charts.
280tonne A359 has absolutely zero trouble doing either of those routes with 306pax + cargo.
In fact, that aircraft doing ATL-ICN with a redispatch at ANC to avoid overflying Kamchatka,...
Says who? Not the range-payload charts.
280tonne A359 has absolutely zero trouble doing either of those routes with 306pax + cargo.
In fact, that aircraft doing ATL-ICN with a redispatch at ANC to avoid overflying Kamchatka, only adds 170nm to the routing, and still leaves it with a few tonnes for cargo @306pax, even assuming 93kg+2 AM/pax and 10% winter reduction. And those are worst-case, barring weather.
And this of course ignores the fact that DL could've at any time reduced its overall pax count while increasing J seat count, in those. Or even the 275tonne "un-twisted" aircraft.
So no..... they didn't have to wait for Airbus to do anything, in order to undergo a TPAC expansion. And no, it has nothing to do with what AA and UA are doing pre nor post-covid.
DL simply chose not to compete in those markets. Be it for inability to effectively penetrate, or to having more profitable opportunities elsewhere (probably both)-- the simple fact remains that equipment performance limitations were not their hindrance.
@ImmortalSynn
Tim doesn't understand the meaning of irony when he makes many of his comments.
"and neither AA or UA have been able to open new routes in other carrier backyards as DL did in both BOS and SEA."
Probably because neither American nor United has organically opened a new hub in many years, and realistically decades, whereas Delta has done it twice. They already serve most competitor markets from the majority of their existing hubs, so what is there really for them to add? About the only really outstanding thing is LAX-ATL by United.
Speaking of facts, tim
Feel free to provide links to any of your nonsense
you know exactly where to find DOT profitability by global region because I have posted it multiple times.
and it is laughable that you ask me to post sources but don't from people like above that make ridiculous statements about the profitability or lack thereof of Delta or any other airline's hubs.
Flight timing is pretty good here.
I realized the other day why Delta's SEA is struggling. So many of their TPAC flights are mid-day. You can barely get anyone from the East Coast onto those flights unless it's a 7am, which no one wants to take. This resulted from Delta thinking ICN is their solution to everything TPAC, so they didn't properly optimize their schedules. If Delta moved their SEA down by a few hours...
Flight timing is pretty good here.
I realized the other day why Delta's SEA is struggling. So many of their TPAC flights are mid-day. You can barely get anyone from the East Coast onto those flights unless it's a 7am, which no one wants to take. This resulted from Delta thinking ICN is their solution to everything TPAC, so they didn't properly optimize their schedules. If Delta moved their SEA down by a few hours it could receive many more banks of East Coast flights from JFK, BOS, and more.
UA does a better job of scheduling later afternoon and night flights so they can load up their planes with more connecting pax from the East Coast as well.
Hadn't thought of that but it makes sense. DL seems to be prioritizing getting its flights to ICN in time for connecting traffic to the rest of Asia (including DTW and MSP), but it is definitely a hindrance to connections on the front end. Perhaps if/when they add a SLC-ICN route, that one could be later in the day to allow connections through SLC more targeting Korea as the final destination.
Yeah overall, the problem is that SEA is so far. Some of the longest continental routes in the US are to SEA. But Delta doesn't adjust their schedules to account for it, unlike UA out of SFO/LAX.
Delta has a ton of tight sub 1hr international connections out of SEA and early AM flights from the East Coast as a result. These are generally just not appealing to travelers. Not to mention business travelers do not want to slog 5 hours in domestic F in a transcon flight.
see above
DL does not need to connect everything via SEA. DL serves every market in E. Asia it serves on its network from DTW AND SEA except for TPE which was just re-added.
DL is retiming its SEA-TPE flight to leave in the afternoon, improving connections from the eastern US and has said it will upgauge the flight to an A350 reflecting strong premium cabin demand.
And the same argument about flight...
see above
DL does not need to connect everything via SEA. DL serves every market in E. Asia it serves on its network from DTW AND SEA except for TPE which was just re-added.
DL is retiming its SEA-TPE flight to leave in the afternoon, improving connections from the eastern US and has said it will upgauge the flight to an A350 reflecting strong premium cabin demand.
And the same argument about flight timing applies to UA's west coast daytime Pacific flights. The only way they "fixed" the same problem is by adding a second bank of flights from SFO to much of Asia and a large of those flights did poorly in winter loads according to Cranky's analysis.
And DL does have late night departures to East Asia from the Eastern US with its nighttime ATL-ICN flight while UA has no redeye eastern US to East Asia flights.
UA's SFO can afford to double up on daytime flights since SFO has much larger point to point and total population to fill up those flights. SFO is both a connecting and O&D hub
Dl's SEA doesn't have the same luxury to do so. Delta needs to figure out if it wants SEA to be a connecting hub or not. Otherwise all they'll do is continue pumping flights into ICN.
and your point is precisely WHAT in light of the fact that DL also has DTW and ATL and MSP which each provide 2 or more destinations to East Asia while United has precisely ZERO hubs off of the west coast that have multiple flights to Asia?
UA's advantage is the number of cities it serves in Asia and from the west coast.
DL's advantage is that it serves more cities in Asia from more...
and your point is precisely WHAT in light of the fact that DL also has DTW and ATL and MSP which each provide 2 or more destinations to East Asia while United has precisely ZERO hubs off of the west coast that have multiple flights to Asia?
UA's advantage is the number of cities it serves in Asia and from the west coast.
DL's advantage is that it serves more cities in Asia from more of the US and provides better connectivity to the eastern US than UA.
DL manages to make almost twice as much money per seat mile as UA flying the Pacific.
You can argue all you want about what matters the most but there are clear advantages and disadantages of both DL and UA's strategies - but DL's delivers better bottom line results
The tension between the US and China is that China is an authoritarian country that is encroaching on other countries land and maritime borders bc they want to take over the world. No biggie.
Politics is politics, and business is business.
among US airlines, UA has 2 daily to PVG - one each from LAX and one from SFO - and one daily to PEK.
DL has 2 daily to PVG - one each from SEA and DTW.
AA has 1 daily to PVG from DFW on the 788.
Cranky Flier has shown that PEK is one of UA's load factor routes.
DL is the only carrier that operates a route from the...
among US airlines, UA has 2 daily to PVG - one each from LAX and one from SFO - and one daily to PEK.
DL has 2 daily to PVG - one each from SEA and DTW.
AA has 1 daily to PVG from DFW on the 788.
Cranky Flier has shown that PEK is one of UA's load factor routes.
DL is the only carrier that operates a route from the eastern US to China with DTW-PVG (and DFW is not the eastern US).
AA uses the 788, the smallest aircraft that can make the flight.
There are no joint ventures to China but AA and DL have equity interests in Chinese carriers.
There are unused frequencies to China available for US carriers but none are taking them.
DL is using its aircraft and hub advantage to do what other carriers cannot do which is to fly routes that other carriers are not doing while AA is using its DFW hub - geographically challenged as a single Asia/Pacific gateway - while UA goes head to head with foreign carriers.
DL makes the most money per ASM flying the Pacific - almost twice as much as UA. AA loses vast amounts of money flying the Pacific and has for years.
AA, DL and UA are for-profit private companies in contrast to the state-owned Chinese carriers.
Tim, if, as you say, DL outperforms UA TPAC and TATL, and UA financial results are similar to DL's, especially once non-operational benefits like extra AMEX revenue, are removed, then where does UA outperform DL to make up for the international underperformance?
Does UA outperform DL domestically? DL can't significantly outperform UA everywhere and still have similar results.
Go take a look at the seat map for yesterday's departure from LAX to PVG on teh United app. Still there. VERY VERY EMPTY.J
The problem is even it’s empty, no price drop!
The way I try to capitalize on empty w/ no price drop is by booking economy (with miles or cash, whichever makes sense) and stretching across 3 seats! Even if not flying to PVG, that'll get you almost all the way to your destination with a good flight sleep!
The author is confused, as China's economy is growing twice as fast as the US's. The reason for the lack of flights is purely geopolical combined with the fact that Chinese investment into the US has shifted to other countries and vice versa.
China growth has slowed to nearly half of what it was pre pandemic. It doesn’t matter how much faster growth is or is not compared to other nations - growth rates cutting in half has a massive impact on demand.
If only United has a Polaris check-in area at LAX.
LAX has PS LAX which you can buy access to if you are so snobbish you cannot even stand checking in at a normal ticketing counter.
But the money PS LAX charges is much better spent on a therapist who can reduce your snobbishness.
Knowing LA the PS host is probably a therapist on the weekends
United absolutely has a dedicated Polaris/1K check-in line, right next to Global Reception. It’s been there since they remodeled the terminal about a decade ago. LAX is my home airport and I use that check-in line regularly
I guess it's good that Star Alliance people now have a direct option between the two cities. SkyTeam at least has China Airlines, though from what I remember, Lucky flew that route in both their business and first class in the past each way and wasn't all that impressed by them.
Sorry, meant to say China Eastern Airlines.
China Airlines is also in SkyTeam and flies nonstop ONT-TPE which is really cool.
I know that China Airlines is also in SkyTeam, just like EVA is also in Star Alliance.
The Chinese population in LA is mostly Taiwanese, not mainland Chinese. That said, it would be shocking if any coastal US city to China route were unprofitable. Fares are through the roof, and I was quoted 900,000 UA miles for a one-way business class ticket next month.