United fly most frequently USA <--> Australia

[serfty]

but it seems even their SFO flights are operating at half empty, while Qantas' flights to San Fransisco are full.

Given it is within T-80 for the Qantas flights, and i don't believe UA use "notional seating", you are comparing apples and oranges.

Loadings are where is at:

 

[RSVKanga]

Firstly you're comparing a daily 777 service to a 3 times weekly 787 service.

Okay, to quash this allegation of bias, let's look at the reverse case. Melbourne to Los Angeles. UA operates 4x a week on a 787 while Qantas does it daily with 787/A380.

Yet those UA 787 flights are often half empty while Qantas can manage to fill a whole A380 on the same route in the same cabin. So it's just a matter of Australians choosing not to fly UA, directly contradicting whatever was said in the opinionated article in December. So the aircraft size and frequency don't have much to do with QF vs UA loads.


Economy cabin of UA99 Melbourne to Los Angeles 787 on August 18 (Today - currently in the air):





Economy cabin of QF93 Melbourne to Los Angeles A380 on August 20:




So I don't think aircraft size or frequency plays a big role in payloads in this case, considering Qantas has a payload lead over UA on both routes where they fly the smaller planes and are the least frequent flyer and on routes where they fly larger planes and are the most frequent flyer.

 

[dajop]

Next you're using EF seatmap which really means absolutely nothing for loads.

EF is really quite accurate post departure - for the airlines that allow seat maps to be published after departure. Before departure - agree - depends on the airline and we all know things jump around the closer you get to check in cut off.

If OP was to make a more coherent argument he’d look at post departure maps. But when tr…ing , the more controversial the better.

 

[RSVKanga]

If OP was to make a more coherent argument he’d look at post departure maps. But when tr…ing , the more controversial the better.

How about you look at the post above you before making these unhelpful comments? UA99 to LAX today - currently in the air is half empty and I have included the seatmap for that.

 

[RooFlyer]

How about you look at the post above you before making these unhelpful comments? UA99 to LAX today - currently in the air

Nice edit in that post, following dajop's comment.

 

[RSVKanga]

Nice edit in that post, following dajop's comment.

The post-departure seatmap for today's UA99 in that post was always there. Emphasis added because clearly some people didn't notice.

I'm unsure why you and a few others in this thread continue to beat this dead horse in defending UA through smear tactics and questioning against facts. UA have not only failed with their capacity dumping but are also under their revised schedule still flying planes half empty to/from Australia whether that be planes currently in the air or seatmaps for the next 2-3 days, while Qantas' flights are full.

 

[dajop]

How about you look at the post above you before making these unhelpful comments? UA99 to LAX today - currently in the air is half empty and I have included the seatmap for that.

Posts overlap, when 3 mins apart. It’s not instantaneous to post a reply. I was looking at UA 870 on the 15th whilst drafting my post. Whilst QF73 was fuller UA 870 on that date wasn’t particularly empty and full in business.

Really need to do the analysis across a couple of weeks to paint a picture.

 

[justinbrett]

I’m not sure the comparison is meaningful anyway. Why would you book on that particular route with QF unless you’re going to SFO itself or possibly a few NW destinations on AS.

Whereas for UA it’s a major hub and will be serving a majority of destinations throughout the country.

You really need to look at the market as a whole.

 

[RooFlyer]

UA have not only failed with their capacity dumping but are also under their revised schedule still flying planes half empty to/from Australia whether that be planes currently in the air or seatmaps for the next 2-3 days, while Qantas' flights are full.

So what exactly is the problem or more precisely, what is your point?

If United want to fly half empty planes (not a proven fact - only your cherry picking here ) to and from Australia that’s their business. If someone wants to fly economy that means you’re going to have a quite a lot of space around you. That’s a big plus.

And an airline that is flying under capacity is more likely to reduce their prices compared to one that is flying chockers. Not that Qantas was ever other than expensive.

Everyone I have met here is an airline consumer. So flight frequency, space and lower prices are great positives. So again I ask you, what’s the problem?

Edit: typos

 

[RSVKanga]

If someone wants to fly economy that means you’re going to have a quite a lot of space around you. That’s a big plus.

So again I ask you, what’s the problem?

Do you think privately owned airlines from capitalist countries will be happy if there’s a lot of vacant space in the economy cabin? This is not petro dollar fairyland and it’s an indicator that the service is not commercially viable since Australians and arguably Americans are preferring Qantas over UA in droves.


In fact I expect a third tranche of UA Australia cuts; by the end of 2025 I think all of UA’s flights from Australia to LAX will be axed and UA’s SYD-SFO downgraded to a 787 and reduced frequency. That leaves only 3 daily UA flights from Australia to one destination.

 

[RooFlyer]

Do you think privately owned airlines from capitalist countries will be happy if there’s a lot of vacant space in the economy cabin? This is not fairyland and it’s an indicator that the service is not commercially viable since Australians and arguably Americans are preferring Qantas over UA.


In fact I expect a third tranche of UA Australia cuts; by the end of 2025 I think all of UA’s flights from Australia to LAX will be axed and UA’s SYD-SFO downgraded to a 787 and reduced frequency. That leaves only 3 daily UA flights to Australia to one destination.

Again, you haven’t actually identified a problem, especially for most of us and AFF who are airline consumers. I don’t care if the route I am travelling on is profitable or not for the airline. I don’t care if it’s government subsidised or not. Just get me where I want to go, when I want to go, for a reasonable price and reasonable comfort.

What an airline from 'a capitalist country' (do you mean the USA??) decides to do is a matter for their management. Lose money on route, make money on a route, keep planes flying rather than axe pilots or lose slots etc. - its all part of the mix and something airlines deal with every single day.

Your concern over United Airlines' profitability is touching, but frankly, who here cares? If the frequency gets reduced or the route gets cancelled in the future, it’s just part of the ever-changing tapestry of the airline industry and nothing unusual.

 

[RSVKanga]

Again, you haven’t actually identified a problem

There’s no problem. There’s only facts. The fact is that every single part of the opinionated December article you linked and quoted in post #1 is now no longer true and we’re witnessing a spectacular rise and fall situation. Not only are they no longer the largest carrier on the Australia-USA corridor, but the other part of that article is also invalidated:

Business travel is roughly flat on pre-pandemic levels, but Mr Stevens said United was capitalising on traveller discontent.

“I won’t speak for the other US carriers, but I think that they’re choosing United where they may have picked an Australian carrier in the past,” he said.

“If we can give them a great experience on that first trip, I think we feel very confident they’re going to stay. They’re going to continue to choose United in the future.”

As of now, UA can barely fill a 787 economy cabin above 50% on a route they fly 4x weekly while Qantas flies daily on the same route and have loads of near 100% on an A380 in the same cabin. How does that align with the above quote?

 

[RooFlyer]

The fact is that every single part of the opinionated December article you linked and quoted in post #1 is now no longer true and we’re witnessing a spectacular rise and fall situation.

Do you really mean you’re still harking back to that article of 9 months ago? As if things in the airline industry don’t change every day?

My goodness, there must be hundreds of airline related stories quoted and discussed on AFF. Most people appreciate that an article or headline is only ever current at the time it’s presented. Things change.

But go for your life and keep on talking about this one 9 month old story. You'll be able to mark the first anniversary in a few months. Every time you post, it highlights that United will be a better choice to the USA for consumers than Qantas. Go and

 

[RSVKanga]

Every time you post, it highlights that United will be a better choice to the USA for consumers than Qantas. Go and

It really doesn’t. A large amount of vacant space in the UA economy cabin while QF loads are 100% simply suggests that the UA product and option is unpopular - not only with Australians but likely also with the Americans. Qantas is arguably a well recognised and respected brand in the USA and we’re seeing that reflected in demand. May QF’s huge margin against UA in this market continue to increase.

It’s all looking good for Qantas with NY flights being boosted from October and new routes to Seattle and/or Las Vegas being floated, while UA continues to cut because they’re unpopular.

 

[RooFlyer]

A large amount of vacant space in the UA economy cabin while QF loads are 100% simply suggests that the UA product and option is unpopular -

No, it reflects over capacity. You can’t have it both ways - either they are capacity dumping and therefore going to have a lot of space or they’re just running their planes normally and it’s not a popular product.

Here endeth my contribution to this thread but keep highlighting United’s frequent, spacious and less expensive product.

 

[SYD]

Here endeth my contribution to this thread but keep highlighting United’s frequent, spacious and less expensive product.

That’s actually where the wheels fall off the original hypothesis. The fares still haven’t dropped back to pre Covid numbers. So UA presumably thought they could dump a bunch of ex China capacity on Oz but maintain (gouge) fares due to high demand. They probably didn’t need to fill every plane to still make some money.

Also, no mention of loads at the front of the bus. That’s where the real money is made and I bet they’re departing full or close to (even allowing for upgrades etc).

 

[dajop]

As of now, UA can barely fill a 787 economy cabin above 50% on a route they fly 4x weekly while Qantas flies daily on the same route and have loads of near 100% on an A380 in the same cabin. How does that align with the above quote?

QF load doesn’t look so good in the other direction today. The QF flight from LAX-Mel in the air right now has about 70% loading in economy. (Meanwhile the UA flight you posted above MEL-LAX is about 60%).

But the point is you can’t just judge from individual flights. Nor just the economy cabin. And you have to factor in yields and cost of operating the aircraft too.

In any event the airlines will continue to adjust schedules according to demand relative to other markets they could deploy the aircraft. That’s the business they’re in.

 

[justinbrett]

Of the US big 3, UA has long* been the most Pacific focused (especially with the merge of Continental which had a hub in Guam). So even with excess capacity and/or low loads, I don’t see any further cuts beyond what they’ve already cut.

*Post Pan Am

 

[SYD]

*Post Pan Am

That’s because they picked up the Pan Am routes!

4/22/1985: United's Purchase of Pan Am's Pacific Division

Today, in 1985, United Airlines announced that it was to buy Pan Am's Pacific division.

airwaysmag.com

 

[Saab34]

MEL-SFO seems to be performing well for UA.

It appears most premium cabins also go out full, the issue seems to be Sydney-USA Y cabins. Is that correct?