All the yields are public DOT data. You can look it up. FLL/MCO make like $120+/pax less than our hubs for domestic yields. A 737/320 usage means we're taking almost a $20k hit in revenue per flight.

And yes spirit/frontier have a good sized presence there but there's a reason that there was a vacuum to fill. No one else wants it at that scale. Vacation markets don't pay the bills. They exist to give points redemptions to credit card holders.

Contrary to what many people were saying, Scott Kirby was (unfortunately) right.

This I didn’t know. Where is this public data published? I actually do wish to look it up…not to prove anyone wrong more to quench my thirst for yield statistics.

I think this is the result of a heavy ULCC presence in FLL. I think of full service carriers can corner the market, then this should result in yields increasing.

Next point is directed at you but more towards OP. OP you didn’t have to create this thread….. Today is the not the day…

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/averagefare/

Yes I think yields would come up without the competition but how much would it go up?

This is also the united subforum. I'm not going into the spirit one to put them down.

I know it’s public data. But that data is based on the heavy presence of ULCCs in the market. My point was if full service carriers can corner the market and dominate share, yields should come up.

Sorry edited my post to address your point. I was trying to write the guy above you for the stats.

I don't see the yields coming up that much. For that kind of "cornering the market", it would take a lot of money losing fares to build market share over years. Not the best time to do it with spiking oil. United already is cutting 5% of flying to address keeping up margins. Shareholders need to be kept happy too, just a reality of the business. Last thing United needs is an activist investor.

And it's not a guarantee that those markets will ever be strong enough to justify the money losing flying. For all we know another LCC just pops in.

Mods, please delete this thread. We should uphold some modicum of respect and decency in this forum.

I remember seeing that we were profitable in MCO/TPA. Not like the hubs, but definitely not losing money. I forgot where I saw this though.

There’s a reason MCO is exclusively 739, 7M9, 321, 757, and the occasional 777. From time to time, you’ll get a 7M8.

As a side note, 2% of the 5% was from TLV and DXB. Something that was always going to happen due to safety. Realistically, 3% cut from actual fuel spikes. Those planes from TLV and DXB were already redeployed in other parts of the network allowing us to temporarily park the 757.

If it’s one thing our management is good at, it’s finding ways to take advantage of opportunities and make a profit. If there’s money to be made in FL, they’ll do it

Good to know we're at least a little bit profitable there. But even you can admit that there's no reason to put in a hub there.

Even if the loss of TLV/DXB caused the planes to be moved domestically the 757s were still parked. That tells you that there's no more profit to be made from those planes and it's cheaper to park/utilize them less. If fuel prices were lower, then they'd be using those planes.

And yes I'm glad our management team is profit focused, the proof is in the cutting of capacity when it's needed.