If you ask me, United Airlines has by far the most interesting route network of any US carrier (United flies to the most destinations and most countries of any US carriers), and the airline keeps expanding. In recent years, United has made a game of allowing the public to guess new routes, and I sure enjoy playing along. Here’s the latest example of that.
In this post:
United plans to announce new routes
United will be announcing new routes at 8AM ET on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. United has posted a 30-second video on social media about this announcement. The video is much simpler than many of the past “clue” videos that we’ve seen from United. It simply shows the globe, with a particular focus on Asia and the South Pacific, and there’s a mention of “new dots” coming soon.
Just to contrast this to past videos, below is a similar video we saw around the same time last year, for new route announcements at the time. It was Indiana Jones themed, and featured Patrick Quayle, United’s SVP of Global Network Planning and Alliances.
What new routes will United introduce?
For some general context, United sometimes has two big route announcements per year, as it relates to long haul flights. Typically in the fall, United announces new transatlantic flying for summer, while in the spring, United sometimes announces new long haul winter flying. Typically the fall announcement is bigger than the spring announcement.
Really the only thing we have to go off here is the map that United provides. It’s zoomed in on Asia and the South Pacific, and I’d assume that’s intended to be the clue. It’s possible that I’m missing something, but I think that all the dots shown are existing or already announced United destinations.
United has an excess of long haul aircraft in winter, given all the European destinations that are summer seasonal. China demand hasn’t fully come back, and on top of that, United’s Australia and New Zealand expansion a couple of years ago didn’t prove as profitable as the airline hoped.
United already has an impressive network in Asia, so what could the airline add next? I only have one semi-educated guess. I have to imagine that United will finally launch a flight from San Francisco (SFO) to Bangkok (BKK), perhaps as a winter seasonal service. Air Canada launched a seasonal flight from Vancouver (YVR) a couple of years back, and it has seemingly been a success, since it has been brought back, and even expanded.
I have to imagine that United will do the same, and the timing is no coincidence, given The White Lotus. After all, in past seasons, we’ve seen significant increases in demand to destinations after The White Lotus was filmed. I could be totally wrong, but put me down for that. 😉
I’m struggling to think of other possible new destinations, though. Ho Chi Minh City (SGN) seems a bit farfetched, no? Though I do have fond memories flying there on a United 747 from Hong Kong (HKG). Kuala Lumpur (KUL) is another one worth mentioning, but that seems highly unlikely to me. Nadi (NAN) is another one, but I think Fiji Airways and oneworld have that covered pretty well.
Maybe we could see more service to existing Asian destinations from more gateways in the United States?
Bottom line
United Airlines is teasing new routes that will be announced tomorrow. The clues are limited, and just show a globe that’s zoomed in on Asia and the South Pacific. There are no additional hints, though I feel like a new route from San Francisco to Bangkok is pretty likely, as it has been rumored for a long time, and this seems like the time to launch it.
What routes do you think United will announce?
it's already 8am, no news. hope it's Thailand & Vietnam
BKK, SGN and ADL. Plus second daily MNL flight
Bangkok is obvious then probably SGN, and CGK or DPS
My guess is Bangkok, Fiji, São Paulo
My guess is EWR-BOM
I'll throw in SFO-CTS as a wildcard, maybe on a 788. It could draw a lot of skiers in the winter months.
Seeing as UA pulled a similar move with Marrakech and Tahiti, this is an extremely logical route. Many airlines take advantage of the winter spike, and UA have a short, seasonal, long haul flight in their bones.
SGN, DPS, CGK
CGK, hmm...
I mean there is the point that Apple recently committed to investing US$1b there... idk
I wouldn't be surprised by Chicago to Osaka Kansai (ORD-KIX).
Good Japanese business presence in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast, which ORD can handle perfectly.
The rise in tourism to Japan will help significantly, albeit only on a seasonal basis.
The tourism to Japan is not seasonal!
It is all year round
Even idiot tourists roaming around Japan in August all having heat strokes.
LOL!
Currently you can fly non stop from San Francisco to Fiji, but not to Bangkok.
I believe Some Thai people are still missing United morning flight from BKK to NRT. Hope it's coming back.
Who would want to fly on that airline when you have so many absolutely outstanding airlines in this region. I would not go near them for any reason
I would say maybe Vietnam or Mongolia from EWR Bangkok is a interesting one also maybe Manila
The answer hasn't changed, since the last 1,000 times this (ridiculous) question was asked, about any airline.
Price. Schedule. Convenience. Contracts. FFP. Upgrades. Or, they just plain want to.
The map has a dot on the city of Kaohsiung, Taiwan KHH which I don't believe is served by United so could be a connection of dots from NRT-KHH similar to what is done to serve Cebu, NRT-CEB.
The manufacturing industry in south Vietnam has been rapidly expanding over the past decade so SFO-SGN seems like a logical route for expansion and would compete against Vietnam Airlines which fly's this route a couple times...
The map has a dot on the city of Kaohsiung, Taiwan KHH which I don't believe is served by United so could be a connection of dots from NRT-KHH similar to what is done to serve Cebu, NRT-CEB.
The manufacturing industry in south Vietnam has been rapidly expanding over the past decade so SFO-SGN seems like a logical route for expansion and would compete against Vietnam Airlines which fly's this route a couple times a week.
SFO-BKK is another likely route but would be aimed mostly at the leisure traveler as the business demand is not strong.
UA announced new service to KHH in one of their recent new route batches
Maybe they are you going to link up a couple of existing cities to try and do a RTW - stranger have happened - connecting the dots
Who want to go to Thailand after watching current season of White Lotus!
Armed robbery, drug use, criminals hiding, Russians, cults, talk about how violence is normal, three bitchy women.
No thank you!
And soon at least one dead person!
Lady Boys?
Lady Boys are one of the only positives!
Who wants to go to America after watching CSI, Law and Order, NYPD Blue, Criminal Minds, Bones, etc...
Good point!!!
I don't and I am a US citizen.
Rather chill out in Asia
And who watched that crap anyway?
Who wants to go to BKK when your option is Miracle lounges.
This will shock you: normal people don't fly to a destination simply because of airport lounge options..[sound of Eskimoo's 3 brain cells imploding in horror]
This will shock you: normal people knows sarcasm.
You're in the league of Tim Dunn, his BA alter ego, DenB, AOC, MTG, proximanova or whatever new name he is using.
Seems easy.
SFO - DPS
SFO - BKK
It would be a one stopper from SFO via LHR a route to HYD or MAA would be a great option
Wildcard guess — NRT to Siem Reap, Cambodia. It’s pretty hard to get to but has American tourist draw to Angkor and feels a little bit like Ulaanbataar in that regard.
Its interesting no one has really resumed flights to Siem Reap post-Covid besides Singapore Airlines. Asiana, KAL, China Eastern, China Southern all had flights so was easy to connect. Eva as well and could get a 1.5 hour layover in TPE to make it a relatively quick trip. It's too bad as it could really benefit from easier connections.
Moscow, Pyongyang and more flights to Tel Aviv are on the cards given how Americastan is now aligned with fascism rather than democracy.
Yea, "democracy" is only for failing western countries, with horrible economies....
And those flights should leave the US from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and North Dakota.
Also flights to Hungry and Belarus!
I am hoping United Airlines flies to Gold Coast, Wellington, Nadi.
OOL might be the most underwhelming place I've ever been to. It somehow made Galveston and Panama City, FL (during spring break) look amazing by comparison.
Also, the runway in Wellington is less than 7,000ft. You're not getting a 787 off of that for a flight to the US.
They're not going to start OOL when BNE-SFO is already somewhat marginal, and NZ is already over-serviced from North America. Nadi could be a goer, as Americans are really into Fiji for some reason.
Another clue is that there are three dots bouncing around, so likely 3 new routes. I'll go out on a limb and say there will be two new routes to Bangkok: SFO-BKK and LAX-BKK...even though I think it might be bad timing, as there might be a drop in demand this year due to earthquake. The third I'll go with LAX-KIX.
Actually they say new destinations, not routes, so I guess KIX is out. In terms of destinations, BKK is a safe bet, I'll say also CTS and SGN.
KIX will not happen.
They already underperform on SFO-KIX. LAX-KIX has direct competition from JAL as well.
How about a new round the world flight as UA1 and UA2! Of course, it's April Fool's Day!!!
My serious answer is SFO-NRT-SGN.
Why not SFO-RMQ, though it will never happen. RMQ is Taichung, the new second largest city in Taiwan, having surpassed Kaohsiung.
Current Vietnam-USA air service agreement explicitly disallow U.S. carriers 5th-freedom flight via Japan airport. Thus a decade ago UAL served Saigon via a stopover at HKG airport.
The thing that no one's brought up, is that United currently cannot partner with Thai, for such a flight.
That's because Thailand, for whatever inane reason, is still under IASA Category-2 status . . . meaning that its airlines are banned from operating to the USA nonstop from their home country, and they cannot carry a US code, nor enter a venture with any US passenger airline.
So while UA can fly nonstop to...
The thing that no one's brought up, is that United currently cannot partner with Thai, for such a flight.
That's because Thailand, for whatever inane reason, is still under IASA Category-2 status . . . meaning that its airlines are banned from operating to the USA nonstop from their home country, and they cannot carry a US code, nor enter a venture with any US passenger airline.
So while UA can fly nonstop to BKK, it cannot codeshare nor revenue-share with Thai.
It's been that way since 2015, with a failed attempt to rectify it in 2018, but no real movement since.
Considering that BKK doesn't generate anywhere near the corporate traffic (and ensuing yield) from N.America that HKG/SIN/TYO do: not being able to partner with the incumbent carrier, is a 1-2 punch against having a nonstop from the US mainland.
So unless Thailand is, or is expected to be restored to Cat-1 status in the foreseeable future, it seems unlikely that United would be launching a nonstop from N.America to Thailand. Totally possible, but just not likely.
It'd be really interesting to see them doing it via Japan again though. Why not, since the Narita hub has made a miniature comeback, in a sense. (shrugs)
There are recent news reports that Thailand will imminently be upgraded to IASA Category 1.
I'd seen some last fall, with a supposed target date of (this past) February. But none was from an authoritative source, and now that time period has come and gone.
I do hope they change it. I've never gotten an actual explanation as to why no other country takes issue with Thailand's aviation authority/security infrastructure, except the USA, despite it...
I'd seen some last fall, with a supposed target date of (this past) February. But none was from an authoritative source, and now that time period has come and gone.
I do hope they change it. I've never gotten an actual explanation as to why no other country takes issue with Thailand's aviation authority/security infrastructure, except the USA, despite it all supposedly being based on an international assessment.
Then again, there doesn't seem to be anything in the regulations that prevents an interline with a Cat2 country's carrier. UA just may say "screw it," and launch the route only interlining with Thai. Guess we'll see.
@ConcordeBoy,
Then can you explain why/how MNL works. It must be similar dynamics, except for the flight length.
Aside from shorter distance, higher fares, an incumbent carrier that's spent 2 decades conditioning the market to expect a nonstop, and much Much MUCH higher demand....... they're exactly the same. ;)
No disagreement on demand is way higher to MNL. But I was thinking the business market might be stronger to BKK over Manila and the premium leisure market is surely better. Also given UA would be the only nonstop operator from the US they might be able to command a nonstop premium, especially in J.
But you have to admit PAL is not really in the same league as UA in the MNL market,...
No disagreement on demand is way higher to MNL. But I was thinking the business market might be stronger to BKK over Manila and the premium leisure market is surely better. Also given UA would be the only nonstop operator from the US they might be able to command a nonstop premium, especially in J.
But you have to admit PAL is not really in the same league as UA in the MNL market, who had it to themselves for over 20 years (not really including the NRT connections back in the day) Whereas now, UA entered late and seems to hold its own despite the yield pressure from PR.
But I’m just guessing giving I have no access to any real data. Just anecdotes from experience.
There is a lot of US outsourcing in Manila these days so business market could be good.
Also a lot of well off Filipinos living in California who fly back to the Philippines regularly and are willing to send extra for a nice seat.
The Philippines is not a poor country these days. Thriving middle class and growing economy. Safer then Thailand too. White Lotus does not make Thailand look like a safe country to...
There is a lot of US outsourcing in Manila these days so business market could be good.
Also a lot of well off Filipinos living in California who fly back to the Philippines regularly and are willing to send extra for a nice seat.
The Philippines is not a poor country these days. Thriving middle class and growing economy. Safer then Thailand too. White Lotus does not make Thailand look like a safe country to visit! Armed robbery, violence (including with water guns), criminals hiding, drugs, etc
Also tourism to the Philippines is booming. Palawan (El Nido and Corona), Boracay, Bohol and more. Lot of high end resorts now and more being built.
"White Lotus does not make Thailand look like a safe country to visit!"
You are not seriously dimwitted enough to base your assessment on Thailand, a country who rivals France and the UK for total tourism numbers, on a fictional streaming show, are you?
If so. Uh, wow.
Have you forgotten that United has had a station in BKK for ages? It's not the first time flying there.
it is beyond ironic that Ben managed to get almost 500 replies to an article that was based on the conviction that demand between Canada and the US had fallen 70% and the US was no longer a desirable place to visit.
Multiple airlines came out and disavowed that data - which damages OAG's reputation for even posting that kind of cherrypicked data as well as everyone else that bought it - and Canadian airlines...
it is beyond ironic that Ben managed to get almost 500 replies to an article that was based on the conviction that demand between Canada and the US had fallen 70% and the US was no longer a desirable place to visit.
Multiple airlines came out and disavowed that data - which damages OAG's reputation for even posting that kind of cherrypicked data as well as everyone else that bought it - and Canadian airlines are now saying that, at best, their Canada-US bookings are down 10% over 6 months and they are pulling single digit amounts of capacity out of the market.
If the US was really quickly becoming a place foreigners don't want to visit, then United, with the largest international route system among US airlines, would be by far the most exposed.
The correct perspective has been laid out as it exists now which is that there are likely some single digit to low double digit decreases in some components of SOME demand.
UA itself is on record as saying that, if these trends continue, they will reduce capacity after the summer.
So, this flight might not be growth but rather redeployment.
But let's also be clear that United's allure to its fans and many of its employees has been the promise of growth and the "sexiness" of its route system - even though UA has not been able in 7 years of trying under the current leadership team to turn all of that into industry leadership - either in financial or customer service metrics.
by the summer, all United unionized employees except for pilots will have amendable labor contracts since airline labor contracts - under the RLA - do not expire but rather become amendable.
There is no strategy more effective in keeping people from thinking about their personal situation than to talk about how great the team is doing .
I'm pretty sure most UA FAs and mechanics want pay and profit sharing comparable to what DL employees get rather than a rah rah speech about UA's growth to a city most UA employees will never visit.
Let's not forget that UA has by far the biggest aircraft order book by value in the US industry as well as is spending the most on terminal expansion - in fact, more than all other US airlines COMBINED.
UA is highly susceptible to downturn; downturn or not, UA employees will grow tired very quickly of watching their competitor's employees' be paid more - even as UA execs keep talking about growth.
UA is spending enormously to grow its business; lots of UA employees are happy to see that growth AFTER UA commits to raising its employees' pay and profit sharing.
Oh, do shut up Tim. Reading your post is rather like enduring a prolonged toothache—entirely unnecessary and excruciatingly dull. You have a truly remarkable talent for being consistently, unwaveringly, and insufferably wrong about absolutely everything. It’s almost admirable, in a tragic sort of way.
of course United management wants to silence any mention of the lower pay that United employees that deliver the product get. Who else would be opposed to raising UA employee wages and benefits to industry comparable levels?
Feel free to let UA's investor relations dept. know that the information on their 10K that shows that virtually all non-pilot unionized employees will have amendable contracts by this summer.
The real pain is in the pocketbooks of...
of course United management wants to silence any mention of the lower pay that United employees that deliver the product get. Who else would be opposed to raising UA employee wages and benefits to industry comparable levels?
Feel free to let UA's investor relations dept. know that the information on their 10K that shows that virtually all non-pilot unionized employees will have amendable contracts by this summer.
The real pain is in the pocketbooks of UA employees that haven't been able to keep up w/ rising costs even as their mgmt incessantly touts how well UA is doing and how much it will grow - made possible by underpaid employees.
Real pain is that AA and WN both raised the pay of their employees even when they made far less than UA has made.
We all crusade for something. On behalf of my UA employee friends and the UA employees that serve me on their flights, I won't give up until ALL UA employee contracts are brought up to industry current levels.
Tim, have you considered starting your own blog instead of forcing your suckage all over OMAAT 24/7?
IOW, you don't want anybody to say anything that is contrary to what you want to hear.
in the case of this article, the only people that want to hear "grow everything except UA employee salaries" have to be UA management.
I'm all for UA's growth and that of every other airline - but don't do it on the backs of their employees
That's a bit of a leap buddy. Let's not conflate not wanting to read your tired drivel with not wanting to listen to "anything that is contrary to what you want to hear." It's a bit more simple than that; you're just annoying as hell and nobody's actually interested in what you have to say.
and if it is really that bad, then why are you incapable of just skipping it?
You do realize that someone found my original comment helpful?
There are people that recognize that UA's corporate successes mean nothing if it comes at someone's personal costs - esp. 10s of thousands of persons.
Tim I admire your comment about UA employees needing higher pay, but given they are the most profitable airline in the US for actual flying (by that I actually mean they lose the least from flying - other airlines (Delta) more than makes up for the difference through loyalty, United has room to move when it comes to Opex.
What is dumb about your comment is things like in 7 years of management they...
Tim I admire your comment about UA employees needing higher pay, but given they are the most profitable airline in the US for actual flying (by that I actually mean they lose the least from flying - other airlines (Delta) more than makes up for the difference through loyalty, United has room to move when it comes to Opex.
What is dumb about your comment is things like in 7 years of management they haven't got industry leadership - sure they may not be the leader but the gap both financially and in customer ratings are about as close as they have ever been (well the closest since the GFC). Turns out you can't double your profits overnight in this industry... UA has a different approach than Delta, e.g. they don't raise expectations that are impossible to meet like Delta running ads showing flight attendants lifting bags into overhead bins which they can't do as its not covered by workers comp in the US or saying they will never have a tech outage again and then completely falling apart because they relied on one tech supplier, or just charging an arm and a leg for very inconsistent hard and soft products... UA differentiates on its network and focusing on its hubs, so doing new route launches like this is how it wins customers.
Also United has a bit of a history with betting on growth into downturns, it worked for them in COVID and AA/WN have been the ultimate losers of UA not retiring aircraft then. Working for a growing airline has huge benefits for employees, it gives existing employees more room to grow in their careers (more FAs become lineholders, more long-segments = more pay, more interesting routes) so even with lower profit sharing the current employees may prefer that over facing furloughs or being thrown on reserve in a heartbeat... Or the classic "we don't furlough but you dropped your ID badge so you're fired" that Delta did through COVID.
and yet you missed the point by a country mile.
Touting financial success while underpaying your employees IS PRECISELY why they have NARROWED the gap. Tack on $1 billion more in annual labor costs and UA will end up - right in the middle of AA and DL - which is where they have been for years.
Arguing that UA makes the most based on just on flying is a copout. Credit card revenue -...
and yet you missed the point by a country mile.
Touting financial success while underpaying your employees IS PRECISELY why they have NARROWED the gap. Tack on $1 billion more in annual labor costs and UA will end up - right in the middle of AA and DL - which is where they have been for years.
Arguing that UA makes the most based on just on flying is a copout. Credit card revenue - just like every other source of revenue - IS part of the airline model.
and UA still loses money flying passengers. either read the data correctly or don't cite it.
UA has no choice but to not get as much of the credit card revenue as DL gets now.
and, in case you missed it, DL employees disproportionately benefit from Amex revenue even though DL is by far the least pushy of the big 3 regarding credit card announcements.
again, get back w/ us when UA raises its labor costs across the board and then in a couple years when UA also gets a credit card contract and DL renews its own Amex agreement - and DL then starts repairing hundreds of new generation engines for other airlines at 20% margins which will far exceed any transportation revenues.
The drums in the video don't sound particularly Thai but that's where my money is.
SFO would certainly be the shorter distance, but LAX (Hollywood) is the home of Thai-town.
Thai expats would not make up a significant % of the traffic, I'm assuming it would be mostly transiting passengers, in which case SFO makes more sense as a stronger United transpacific hub.
I wonder if the drums sound could be fed into ChatGPT for thoughts? Would be interesting haha
LAX to BUR
..
lol....
Commentators always suggest a bunch of low-yield ULR leisure routes that only the 787-9 and 777-300ER with their premium-heavy cabins could fly to...I'll hold my breath
If UA forms a partnership with TG, then the route could be much more. If UA chooses to hold the plane overnight in BKK, they could use it to get passengers to India, which is very lucrative especially since the BKK-India flights are short and UA can collect most of the revenue.
They don't have to hold the plane overnight - they can follow a similar schedule to what AC has done for YVR-BKK-YVR
Flight from YVR-BKK arrives at 5:15am in Bangkok, and departs for the flight back at 8:10am, so only sits for three hours.
Now, not sure an 8am departure is the most ideal, but it seems to have worked for AC.
AC's plane has more seats (particularly in economy, which is important for leisure routes), they're flying a shorter distance (less fuel) and they have lower labor costs, plus they can fill the plane with not just American passengers but Canadian passengers too. Just because YVR-BKK works for AC doesn't mean SFO-BKK works for United.
United theoretically can fill their plane with Canadian passengers, but it doesn't make sense for a Canadian flyer to go out...
AC's plane has more seats (particularly in economy, which is important for leisure routes), they're flying a shorter distance (less fuel) and they have lower labor costs, plus they can fill the plane with not just American passengers but Canadian passengers too. Just because YVR-BKK works for AC doesn't mean SFO-BKK works for United.
United theoretically can fill their plane with Canadian passengers, but it doesn't make sense for a Canadian flyer to go out of their way in the wrong direction an airline they're less likely to be loyal to
I'm not arguing the viability of the route. My only point in the comparison was that they can follow a similar schedule and not have to have the aircraft sit at BKK for a full day - if they were to do a SFO-BKK-SFO route it doesn't need to be a double red-eye, like the Brazil, Chile, Argentina routes.
Increasing SFO-CHC. SFO-NAN/BKK/SGN are my guesses. Wildcard SFO-CNS
My guess is SFO-BKK seasonally, and then maybe 2-3 more ex-NRT B738 routes.
on second thoughts, it could also be an expansion of intra-Asia likely involving either GUM NRT or TPE to somewhere new, eg SGN BKK DPS
or it could be AKL-IAH or AKL-EWR where they'd take on QF / NZ
I guess at least one new destination will likely involve GUM or the "Air Mike" fleet.
This is almost certainly wishful thinking but I've always thought a wintertime Denver to Sapporo route to serve the ski market would be cool.
That is an interesting thought I never had. Ski in Japan vs ski in the US.
The problem is most of the skiers probably aren't interested in a long-haul flight like that if they're already in prime ski country.
The travelers actually making that trip need to connect in a hub, which translates to DEN and HND.
Obviously my wish didn't materialize, but with both the EPIC Pass and IKON passes adding Japanese resorts, there's more reason than ever for skiers to try overseas resorts. Additionally, given how expensive skiing in the US has gotten, I know many people who are more open to traveling further to take advantage of cheaper, and imo, better resorts in Japan, Europe etc. While I'm not a market researcher and don't have data on demand or...
Obviously my wish didn't materialize, but with both the EPIC Pass and IKON passes adding Japanese resorts, there's more reason than ever for skiers to try overseas resorts. Additionally, given how expensive skiing in the US has gotten, I know many people who are more open to traveling further to take advantage of cheaper, and imo, better resorts in Japan, Europe etc. While I'm not a market researcher and don't have data on demand or fares, based on my experiences of living in what is now a Vail-owned resort town in Colorado, I know having one of those multi-resort passes has turned skiing at different resorts into a checklist-style hobby to pursue. Given that long-haul leisure demand has gone up post-pandemic in general and Japan will always be a hot tourist market, I could definitely see the logic of exploring such a route. I truly don't know whether it would be successful, but if there's any one thing that you can't fault United for it's that they're never afraid to try.
Anything that avoids their horrible connection times through HND.
One is doubtful that UA can compete successfully with the vast majority of the Asian airlines. That is unless it is aiming at the budget market.
It competes very well with all of them. If it did t, there's no way they'd fly twice daily from San Francisco to Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Seoul, all against great, high quality Asian carriers
UA already has two SFO-SIN flights.
And why on Earth would (either of) you actually believe that? Sure, no one's going to argue that United flight attendants put on the same show of courtesy as a Singapore Girl or All Nippon attendant, but the mystique of the "quality Asian carrier" exists more in AvGeek fanboy circles, than it does in actual bookings, revenue, or anything else most airlines would care about.
United would have no...
UA already has two SFO-SIN flights.
And why on Earth would (either of) you actually believe that? Sure, no one's going to argue that United flight attendants put on the same show of courtesy as a Singapore Girl or All Nippon attendant, but the mystique of the "quality Asian carrier" exists more in AvGeek fanboy circles, than it does in actual bookings, revenue, or anything else most airlines would care about.
United would have no reason to fear going up against them at all.
I don't believe that. That's why I wrote the post. I believe United competes very well with the best of the Asian carriers, and I gave as proof the fact that they offer so much capacity that goes head to head with some of the top Asian airlines. Not sure how you didn't understand that point.
This is an odd comment United has hubs with high Asian populations SFO, LAX, GUM, HNL so yes they can compete lol
Wish it is EWR -BKK
Lmao it’s way too far for any aircraft united currently flies.
Lmao it’s way too far for any aircraft united currently flies.
Lmao it’s way too far for any aircraft united currently flies.
Bangkok would be an awesome edition. Have to agree - United's network is what got me to mostly defect from OneWorld. There's just nothing better if you're based in the US and a global traveller.
They've pulled all those China flights you mentioned in your post last week. All of them have been removed from the schedule. You should update that.
Also, Chengdu doesn't show as a dot on the map in the video, so I doubt they have intentions of flying back there.
That flight existed to serve Apple, and Apple pulled its business out of chengdu.
... No worries.... a 'tease' press release will materialize shortly, with a follow-up video presentation, I'm sure .... ( just don't hold your breath! ) ....
my guesses-
SFO-SGN
SFO-DPS
IAH-HKG
SFO-PER
I oh so wish they would add DPS, but the market isn't there and won't be there.
Also, Indonesian authorities, it gets complicated...
UA doesn't have an aircraft, current nor on order, capable of flying SFO-PER, so that one's out.
The only one of these that has enough demand to even fill an ERJ (2023 numbers) would be SFO-SGN, but it already has a competitor doing it nonstop. Tons of volume, but not high yield at all. People going to SGN/HAN will happily connect in HKG/TPE/SIN/TYO if it means saving a few bucks, and there isn't much corporate traffic that demands a nonstop.
The existing competitor on SFO-SGN you’re referring to is Vietnam Airlines, who only the route once per week, which leaves plenty of opportunity for UA to test out the market.
SFO-BKK would be great too, as no carrier operates nonstop from the US to Thailand currently.
Where are you getting that from?
VN98/99 operates 4x per week in the summer and fall, and the company has hinted at increases.
ConcordeBoy, thanks for your input.
SFO-PER per Gcmap is just ~140 miles longer than QF's LHR-PER which also uses a 787-9, so would it really be incapable?
(even if hypothetically speaking)
as for SGN, if VN's supposedly intending to increase frequencies (per another comment here), then maybe there's potential for UA to compete. Also the country as a manufacturing center has become lot more significant in the last decade.
"SFO-PER per Gcmap is just ~140 miles longer than QF's LHR-PER which also uses a 787-9, so would it really be incapable?"
I can answer that much: compare the amount of seats on Qantas's B787 versus United's.
Significant weight difference, and United is not going to be comfortable having to block the amount of available seats that they'd need to make that work. I've heard that they were routinely blocking huge amounts of seats...
"SFO-PER per Gcmap is just ~140 miles longer than QF's LHR-PER which also uses a 787-9, so would it really be incapable?"
I can answer that much: compare the amount of seats on Qantas's B787 versus United's.
Significant weight difference, and United is not going to be comfortable having to block the amount of available seats that they'd need to make that work. I've heard that they were routinely blocking huge amounts of seats on LAX-SIN when they tried (and failed at) that with a B787, and that route is 300 nautical miles shorter than SFO-PER.
I agree... SFO - BKK is the likely route.. although, SFO - KUL could be in the mix. Personally, I would like to see DEN - SYD, which could alleviate connecting traffic to SFO and LAX for SYD flights. I am likely dreaming!
Denver is too high to sustain flights that long. UA already has IAH-SYD for this purpose.