More airlines committed to IAH! (Houston, Paris: 2015, bankruptcy, maintenance)

[BCEagles01]

Originally Posted by justme02

Man, there are so many things wrong with that.

First off, IAH is no way UA's 4th most important hub. There is no way to really rank their hubs in order of importance since they all serve different purposes:

-Chicago O'Hare is UA's "Jack of all trades" hub (similar to DFW for AA and ATL for DL). They have service to Latin America, Europe, Asia, North America, and an extensive domestic network.
-San Francisco is United's Asian gateway with some service to Europe. The domestic network is limited to major cities in the Eastern and Central parts of the US as well as smaller and major cities on the West Coast.
-Newark is the parimary gateway to Europe with some service to Asia and Latin America. Its domestic network is somewhat limited, but more extensive than San Francisco.
-Washington DC is the gateway to Africa and secondary gateway to Europe. The opperation is more O&D driven and less focused on connections.
-Denver is a solely domestic hub, but has the most domestic destinations of any airport in the US.
-Los Angeles is a focus city that serves O&D to Europe, Asia, and Mexico with limited connections

Now then, that brings us to Houston. Houston is United's number one Latin American gateway with extensive domestic service and some European service and flights to Tokyo and Lagos. Without Houston, United has nothing worth while in Latin America. Houston serves a function that no other United hub could take over: Latin America gateway. Houston has the geography and is the 4th largest local market to Latin America in the US (Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Houston, Dallas, and Chicago make up the top 6 in order and there is a huge drop off after Chicago). Newark would never be able to serve that purpose because its too far north and DC is too far north and does not have the local market.

Now then, there is no ranking of hubs. None. You may be able to argue that Chicago is the most important, but after that, they cannot be ranked.

Chicago is very important to us,but even it has less flights per day. That was an eye opener for me when I saw the numbers. Before the merger and even now after the merger. But Houston brings in $$. For all the jack of trades Chicago may have, it doesn't have Oil.

Never underestimate the power of big oil.

I agree...they all serve their own purpose. Of our hubs, Los Angeles. Chicago,San Fran, DC, New York ( Newark ), Denver -All major business centers not only in the country,but world in some cases, Houston in terms of yields is probably the most important.

LA is very much a hub still.

[majicdonjuan]

Originally Posted by BCEagles01

As a United employee ( started with Continental ) I can say Houston IS our most important hub. Houston ( Bush ) is one of the highest yielding hubs of ANY of the airlines in the country. Certainly top 2-3. All due to Oil and energy.

In terms of yield$ it is a moneymaker. IAH has some of the highest fares in the country.

It's the most important hub because of one thing. Again....OIL.

All the contracts Air France carries through Paris on to Africa and the middle east in the oil business. The multiple flights a day on British Airways. And Houston-Amsterdam. I can say KLM and ourselves do well on that route.

Houston-Lagos while it picks up of a good portion
of the nigerian population in Houston and Dallas is aimed at energy and oil people. No more 4,5,6 hour connecting times in Paris,Amsterdam,Frankfurt,etc

BEFORE the merger Houston had more flights per day than O'Hare. Like 675 to 660. Not much,but we had more.

Even with the recent cut in Paris service, Houston STILL has more flights per day than any other hub in our system. That includes,Chicago,Newark ( New York ), Washington DC ( Dulles ), Denver, San Fran, etc. Major business centers in this country.

Houston isn't going anywhere. We'll surely add flights in the future.

But yes....maybe some here don't think so,but yes Houston is the crown jewel in the network. It makes the company alot of $$$. All due to Oil and Energy.

To think the company is going to let other airlines make major headway into Houston is silly.


They'll spite the mayor a bit,but they're not dumb.

And there you have it.

JimBaker, I think you should just lay off the airline talk for a while. You're no longer adding anything to the conversation. United is doing exactly what AA did a few years ago during the Wright Amendment spat - contracting in the initial aftermath, and then they will expand in the long term. Nothing to see here.

[MikeyAusmus]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Earth to MikeyAusmus, earth to MikeyAusmus, Continental does not exist anymore ! Do you understand, you've got to quit living in the past, you need to deal with the reality of todays world.

No s*** Continental doesn't exist anymore! I am saying that United, the one that exists today (the "new" United), you know the one that basically shot and killed Continental Airlines LOL... yeah that United, didn't contribute jacks*** to IAH for the past 30 years! They basically took all the credit for the great things Continental did to IAH. United, you know the "new" United, the one that sucks so bad right now... they are doing the exact opposite to IAH than what Continental did.

Maybe if the "new" United took some pointers from the now 'deader-than-a-doornail' Continental, maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament with Houston that they find themselves in now.

P.S. The "new" United stinks!!

[Johnhw2]

United doesnt "stir" the Houston Drink, Houston's economy is the driving force not United. Oil and its international nature is going to drive the new routes not any United decision.

Fares are high in Houston due to demand, its one place where business travel is heavy and business class fills up for international flights.

Airlines are a service business, they dont drive things for a location although they can make one city appear less united to the globe if the flights all flow to another hub rather than the big destiniation cities with non stop flights.

If United continues to stumble in serving Houston others will step in the fill the hole United may create.

Airlines are not known for their businss acumen....I have heard the air line industry since inception has produced a loss rather than a profit if you sum up all the results....a pretty clear sign of a business that is anything but a service business not a driver of an economy

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by BCEagles01

Chicago is very important to us,but even it has less flights per day. That was an eye opener for me when I saw the numbers. Before the merger and even now after the merger. But Houston brings in $$. For all the jack of trades Chicago may have, it doesn't have Oil.

Never underestimate the power of big oil.

I agree...they all serve their own purpose. Of our hubs, Los Angeles. Chicago,San Fran, DC, New York ( Newark ), Denver -All major business centers not only in the country,but world in some cases, Houston in terms of yields is probably the most important.

LA is very much a hub still.

So you are saying it's not Houston's geography (as a Latin American gateway), nor it's heavy Hispanic population, but it's the concentration of the Oil & Gas industry and the industrys employees in Houston metro that makes IAH the hub with the highest yields in the United network ? Even better yields than the Wall Street crowd produces with flights in and out of NY/Newark ?
So if IAH still has slightly more flights out of IAH than ORD, doesn't United's total passenger volume at
ORD exceed comparable numbers at IAH ?
And if LA is truly a hub and not just a "focus" airport, why couldn't United build up Latin American service
there, perhaps even at the expense of IAH ?
And finally what are your thoughts about international service at Hobby, particularly as it effects Uniteds
Latin American operations at IAH ? My own thoughts are that it's fine if Southwest would wants to offer service from Houston to the Moon or Mars, just so they do it from IAH.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by MikeyAusmus

P.S. The "new" United stinks!!

If that's how you feel, then you should just take your business elsewhere.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

So you are saying it's not Houston's geography (as a Latin American gateway), nor it's heavy Hispanic population, but it's the concentration of the Oil & Gas industry and the industrys employees in Houston metro that makes IAH the hub with the highest yields in the United network ? Even better yields than the Wall Street crowd produces with flights in and out of NY/Newark ?
So if IAH still has slightly more flights out of IAH than ORD, doesn't United's total passenger volume at
ORD exceed comparable numbers at IAH ?
And if LA is truly a hub and not just a "focus" airport, why couldn't United build up Latin American service
there, perhaps even at the expense of IAH ?
And finally what are your thoughts about international service at Hobby, particularly as it effects Uniteds
Latin American operations at IAH ? My own thoughts are that it's fine if Southwest would wants to offer service from Houston to the Moon or Mars, just so they do it from IAH.

IAH exceedes ORD in number of flights and passenger volume.

As for what gives IAH its status, its not one thing. Its oil and gas, Latin America O&D, and its geography relative to Latin American connections. And yes, IAH is easily one of the highest yielding airports in the US.

Why would United build up Latin American service from LAX? To be frank, Im surprised at such a nieve question. LAX does not have the geography and is littered with Central and South American carriers which makes it harder to compete. LAX has nowhere near the connection potential of IAH either. United has around 15 gates at LAX vs. about 80-90 gates at IAH so go ahead and forget building connections there.

[MikeyAusmus]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

If that's how you feel, then you should just take your business elsewhere.

United lost my business a long time ago, to Southwest Airlines heheh

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by MikeyAusmus

No s*** Continental doesn't exist anymore! I am saying that United, the one that exists today (the "new" United), you know the one that basically shot and killed Continental Airlines LOL... yeah that United, didn't contribute jacks*** to IAH for the past 30 years! They basically took all the credit for the great things Continental did to IAH. United, you know the "new" United, the one that sucks so bad right now... they are doing the exact opposite to IAH than what Continental did.

Maybe if the "new" United took some pointers from the now 'deader-than-a-doornail' Continental, maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament with Houston that they find themselves in now.

P.S. The "new" United stinks!!

It does not appear you have worked for a company that has been acquired by a larger company, and if you have, your attitude does not sound professional in a business sense. I've been through that and I felt the same way initially, but in the end you cannot change things, you now work for one company and have to let go of the past and accept whatever changes the new owners make, they own the company now.

Using your logic, if you inherited millions of dollars from your parents, then you would not deserve to use, or spend it because you did not earn it. Think of it that way. United owns everything Continental did including intellectual property, they have every right to claim what they do.

For the record, I'm no fan of United either, I preferred the old Continental myself.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by justme02

Why would United build up Latin American service from LAX? To be frank, Im surprised at such a nieve question. LAX does not have the geography and is littered with Central and South American carriers which makes it harder to compete. LAX has nowhere near the connection potential of IAH either. United has around 15 gates at LAX vs. about 80-90 gates at IAH so go ahead and forget building connections there.

It was the UAL employee/poster who suggested that presently LAX was more of a hub than just a focus airport for United, so I thought perhaps it might have potential for further development which might then include adding to gate capacity ? And I'm sure there's more competition there than in Houston, but of course LA metro is huge, just massive and it's like about 3 times the size of Houston metro with a majority Hispanic population. And in spite of the current fiscal/economic problems in California, that really is a nation unto itself with 2 world-class cities. It would seem the potential for international air service there is virtually infinite, and I don't mean just trans-Pacific service which of course is also a very prominent feed into Latin American flights.
BTW, what's your thoughts on the new LATAM Airlines ? I saw a guy on CNBC say the other day it was actually worthy of an INVESTMENT ?