urbanSTL

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 22, 2024

^Here's the problem with that. You have to fly UA. No thank you. I would very much prefer to fly any Asian, or indeed any American carrier over them. Sure, SFO is UA's primary Pacific gateway. No disputing that. But . . . it's not the only such gateway in the country. I fly trans-Pacific nearly every year. I've taken the flight in question. I don't intend to ever do it again. I don't think it's really limiting my options all that much. Are there a few unique offerings at SFO? Sure. I already mentioned Vietnam Air's flight from Ho Chi Minh, which is one that should be attractive to me for reasons. Is it a good add? Sure. Does it make all that much difference? No, not really. Not unless you have a very specific destination in mind. (Even with SFO I cannot make a one stop to Vietnam on a single itinerary, for instance, since Vietnam interlines with Delta, not UA.) There are equally good or better options to get you to Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, Hong Kong, all your big Asian hubs, and . And you can get from them to almost anywhere else in Asia easily and conveniently. Manilla and Ho Chi Minh are, sadly, not quite at that tippity top level yet, so there aren't many direct flights from the US. (Though Vietnam is growing like gangbusters and getting there quickly, and I don't doubt the Philippines are as well.)

So sure, it adds a couple of convenient links. Not denying that. But I don't really see it's not a trans-pacific game changer. We had it before. I took it. When we lost it my own trans-Pacific itineraries didn't really change all that much. The prices stayed about the same. The timings didn't change significantly. I won't say that nothing changed, but I will say I don't believe it had a big effect. Even the two you listed are easily reachable on a one stop via LAX. Call me crazy, but I've flown through both. I don't see the appeal to SFO. It feels pretty much the same as LAX. (Or Atlanta, O'Hare, DTW, DFW, you pick.) And unless Philippine air is vastly worse than China Eastern, say, I'd rather fly them than UA. Maybe you prefer UA and SFO. That's fine. I respect that. But it doesn't really create many truly unique options or vastly better itineraries. That VN flight honestly is a better itinerary. I wish to god it went anywhere other than SFO as I'd like to take it. I really would. But to get to SFO I have to fly either UA or Southwest, neither one of which interlines with VN.

That said, take the flight. I'm glad it's back. I hope it will keep prices down on WN. I hope it helps somebody. It ought to make your life easier if you're a UA customer. But STLinCHI asked if it makes flights over the Pacific more streamlined. And I really don't think it does terribly much, no. I won't say there isn't an itinerary it helps. But I don't think it's any of the biggest. And the people it's going to help most are basically people that either fly UA or people that prefer to avoid LAX, and I think that's a pretty small minority around here. (Particularly the first part.) And I don't even actually like LAX. It's a less pleasant than average airport. But . . . meh. It's an airport. Any port in a storm. And any airport that has a good connection will be fine by me. Heck, it's not even like we couldn't get there before. We could. And while I'd prefer a Delta flight to SFO, UA is probably somewhat more useful to anyone but me. (But Delta would absolutely have gotten me on that route.)

Agree completely. The flight is great, but mainly for providing added competition to WN and more frequencies to SFO, an important business destination. If you are a UA loyalist, this flight really helps for opening up Asia. If you don't care for UA loyalty, you probably are going to end up finding a better and cheaper route through LAX anyways. 

^I'll probably end up flying to SFO this summer, so even if all it does is help provide competition to whatever route I take, thus putting downward pressure on prices, I will be well content. Incidentally, is UA doing the thing mainline now, or is it back in an E-jet sort of configuration? (When last I took it it was a SkyWest E-175.) And who knows . . . maybe I'll put my butt in UA's seat (or their proxy's), since it'll be a short trip and I won't really need to take anything much more than the clothes on my back anyway.

Ok, let me take another swing at demonstrating the significance of the reinstatement of UA's STL-SFO flights.  

St Louis is not going to get a transpacific flight in the foreseeable future. I think any reasonable person can agree on this. If your final destination is Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai or Beijing, you've got plenty of options to get there (DFW, DTW, LAX, MSP, SEA etc). If you're going further afield then you want the best connections to the primary Asia Pacific gateways. SFO, United's transpacific hub, is the best Asia Pacific gateway. Why? Well, since United bought Pan Am's Asia Pacific routes in 1986, they've had the best Asia Pacific network among US airlines. Here's a list of Asia Pacific cities you can fly to direct from SFO on United that American and Delta don't currently have service to: Auckland, Brisbane, Hong Kong, Manila, Melbourne, Osaka-Kansai, Singapore and Taipei (although Delta is starting flights from Sea-Tac in June).  

Let's briefly talk about Singapore. Singapore is an Alpha + city. If you have a global role of any significance you're going to be regularly visiting Singapore. Singapore is a primary gateway city for SE Asia, China (from the West) and increasingly India (from the East). Its a big deal for St Louis travelers to be able to seamlessly reach Singapore with one stop. Again, Delta and American can't get you direct to Singapore. United has twice daily flights between Singapore and SFO. 

As I said in my previous post, that evening UA28 direct flight from Singapore to SFO is gold. You could have an entire additional day of meetings in Singapore or spend the night anywhere in SE Asia, take a connecting flight to Singapore and catch that flight. No other airline offers evening service from Singapore to the US with a seamless connection to a connecting flight to St Louis. Even SQ's evening flight to LAX can't offer that, because United (their Star Alliance partner) doesn't fly from LAX to St Louis.

I'm not going to tell you that United is a great airline. It's not. It's significantly better internationally, than domestically, but it's still pretty average overseas. I recently flew United from Honolulu to Manila via Guam in March and I can say that United's app is actually really good. I have taken United's (SIN-SFO-STL) flight twice in 2016 and 2017 and it was fine. When you travel as much as I have, you want to get to wherever you're going as quickly as possible. Now that United is going to reinstate direct flights from STL to SFO, the quickest way to get from Singapore to St Louis (with your bags checked through) is via United. Period. Same holds for Manila, Hong Kong and the rest of those cities I listed above. 

Finally, consider the Star Alliance angle. With Lufthansa initiating service to St Louis, Star Alliance has become much more attractive for St Louis residents. United and Lufthansa are both founding members of Star Alliance.  

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 23, 2024

^I'll probably end up flying to SFO this summer, so even if all it does is help provide competition to whatever route I take, thus putting downward pressure on prices, I will be well content. Incidentally, is UA doing the thing mainline now, or is it back in an E-jet sort of configuration? (When last I took it it was a SkyWest E-175.) And who knows . . . maybe I'll put my butt in UA's seat (or their proxy's), since it'll be a short trip and I won't really need to take anything much more than the clothes on my back anyway.

It’s mainline. A319s

Kota that’s a great write up, thank you..

As someone with 800+ real lifetime miles with UA I don’t think it’s a bad airline at all. Everyone has their experiences but UA has been good to me. Glad they are mainline flights!

I’m glad we will have more seats to SFO than before but if they were E‘s I’d be happy too, great planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^I'll assume you meant to have more zeroes as even I probably have thirty or so thousand lifetime miles on UA. (Admiteddly, they add up fast when you fly trans-Pac, so it's not that many flights. Six, I think?) I'm glad they've been good to you, and whatever my personal opinion of their customer service I'm glad the flight is there. It's useful. I don't think it's a game changer in terms of our connectivity, but it's a good solid addition. And of all the flights lost to Covid, it was the probably biggest hole still to be filled.

^^^As to the write up, I won't disagree that there are some routes where there are advantages. I listed one myself where it makes a very big difference. The point of contention isn't whether or not SFO is an important Pacific gateway, but whether it significantly improves Trans-Pacific connectivity out of St. Louis. Technically speaking it doesn't make any difference, since the route was served anyway. If you fly United it is absolutely an advantage. If you don't it clearly isn't. It improves some single booking itineraries, but I don't honestly know how many and I don't think cherry picking a few anecdotes proves anything. And a couple of examples you listed are served by other carriers from other airports: Cathay Pacific serves both Chicago and LAX from Hong Kong and partners with American. China Airlines flies from Taipei into the same and partners with Delta. So no, San Francisco doesn't really provide a unique connection to either of those. Maybe unique if you want to fly on an an aircraft with an N number, but . . . those are best avoided for reasons of food and service anyway.

Anyway, we're making anecdotal arguments. I'm not pretending to have done a careful study on this. I simply stated my personal impression of how much of a change this makes in answer to someone else's question. It's a thing with which I have some experience, having made about a dozen trans-Pacific flights. You disagree, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But you're not making a statistical argument, so I'm forced to assume that's all it is. And it's not even as though we really disagree by all that much. I admitted from the getgo that there are some advantages. You admit you can get to the biggest Asian destinations just as easily on other carriers. So we're just arguing impressions about the details. And to really solve that would require a fairly serious spreadsheet listing a lot of possible routes and connections and a whole lot more airlines than just the big American three. (And we'd have to figure out what things like "much" mean.)

It's a good flight. I'm glad it's back. I'm sorry if I pissed on your favorite airport. SFO is fine. It's an important Pacific gateway. It's not the one I choose to use, but there's nothing wrong with it that I noticed when last I flew through. 

(I'll even try to apologize for pissing on United, but . . . I admitted that's what I was doing and I really don't like them and I tried to at least make it obvious it was just an opinion and not even really well founded. I'll try. They're fine. They're an airline. They're perfectly safe and they'll get you there. And I'm not being completely fair to them as the last time I flew UA I as still doing the basic economy thing, and I am absolutely not doing that anymore. But come on. How many airlines have songs about how bad their service is? "United Breaks Guitars" went viral, for crying out loud. To be completely fair, though, anyone who flies with instruments knows they're all terrible and they all break stuff.)

tztag wrote: ↑

Apr 24, 2024

As someone with 800+ real lifetime miles with UA 

Guy has taken a one-way to DEN once and thinks he's an expert

Ha yes I’ve been to Denver at least once.

800k real miles on UA, 500k on Alaska, 300k on AA and Southwest in a pear tree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^I felt sure there were some zeroes missing there. I'm not an especially frequent flyer, and even I can beat that. (I do suspect I fly to Asia considerably more than your average bear. My passports are thoroughly stamped, though I haven't yet needed to get extra pages. But I don't fly for business and I really only fly when I have to get across an ocean, so you can knock a zero off that for me.) Anyway, there's good odds I'll be flying out to SFO this summer, so we'll see what flight I don't want to take I end up stuck on. (I will not, however, be continuing on to Asia this time. Already done my one trip for the year. Purely domestic for once.)

. . . is it bad that I had to look at my flight records to see what airport I went through two months ago? DTW both ways. It was (mostly) Delta this time. Quite forgot that. LAX was last year inbound, and DFW out.

^also talk of them doing away with open seating and maybe adding extra legroom seats.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/25/southwe ... venue.html

^Oh . . . that'd be lovely!

I'll be on the inaugural flight next week. Looking forward to it. 

Surveying a few days over the next few months. One way fares, STL - YUL
05/02 (TH): Economy: 64% at $550,  Business: 42% $684 USD
05/06 (M):  Economy: 36% at $371,  Business: 0% $533 USD
05/08 (W): Economy: 30% at $371,  Business: 33% $533 USD
05/10 (F): Economy: 28% at $303,  Business: 33% $464 USD
05/13 (M): Economy: 48% at $460,  Business: 42% $594 USD
05/15 (W): Economy: 58% at $550,  Business: 42% $684USD
05/17 (F): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 83% $575USD
05/20 (M): Economy: 28% at $413,  Business: 33% $575USD
05/22 (W): Economy: 60% at $830,  Business: 75% $1019USD
05/24 (F): Economy: 77% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
05/27 (M): Economy: 20% at $331,  Business: 17% $492USD
05/29 (W):Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 0% $1019USD
05/31 (F): Economy: 74% at $550,  Business: 25% $684USD
06/03 (M): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 50% $575USD
06/05 (W): Economy: 26% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
06/07 (F): Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 59% $1019USD

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 24, 2024

^I'll assume you meant to have more zeroes as even I probably have thirty or so thousand lifetime miles on UA. (Admiteddly, they add up fast when you fly trans-Pac, so it's not that many flights. Six, I think?) I'm glad they've been good to you, and whatever my personal opinion of their customer service I'm glad the flight is there. It's useful. I don't think it's a game changer in terms of our connectivity, but it's a good solid addition. And of all the flights lost to Covid, it was the probably biggest hole still to be filled.

^^^As to the write up, I won't disagree that there are some routes where there are advantages. I listed one myself where it makes a very big difference. The point of contention isn't whether or not SFO is an important Pacific gateway, but whether it significantly improves Trans-Pacific connectivity out of St. Louis. Technically speaking it doesn't make any difference, since the route was served anyway. If you fly United it is absolutely an advantage. If you don't it clearly isn't. It improves some single booking itineraries, but I don't honestly know how many and I don't think cherry picking a few anecdotes proves anything. And a couple of examples you listed are served by other carriers from other airports: Cathay Pacific serves both Chicago and LAX from Hong Kong and partners with American. China Airlines flies from Taipei into the same and partners with Delta. So no, San Francisco doesn't really provide a unique connection to either of those. Maybe unique if you want to fly on an an aircraft with an N number, but . . . those are best avoided for reasons of food and service anyway.

Anyway, we're making anecdotal arguments. I'm not pretending to have done a careful study on this. I simply stated my personal impression of how much of a change this makes in answer to someone else's question. It's a thing with which I have some experience, having made about a dozen trans-Pacific flights. You disagree, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But you're not making a statistical argument, so I'm forced to assume that's all it is. And it's not even as though we really disagree by all that much. I admitted from the getgo that there are some advantages. You admit you can get to the biggest Asian destinations just as easily on other carriers. So we're just arguing impressions about the details. And to really solve that would require a fairly serious spreadsheet listing a lot of possible routes and connections and a whole lot more airlines than just the big American three. (And we'd have to figure out what things like "much" mean.)

It's a good flight. I'm glad it's back. I'm sorry if I pissed on your favorite airport. SFO is fine. It's an important Pacific gateway. It's not the one I choose to use, but there's nothing wrong with it that I noticed when last I flew through. 

(I'll even try to apologize for pissing on United, but . . . I admitted that's what I was doing and I really don't like them and I tried to at least make it obvious it was just an opinion and not even really well founded. I'll try. They're fine. They're an airline. They're perfectly safe and they'll get you there. And I'm not being completely fair to them as the last time I flew UA I as still doing the basic economy thing, and I am absolutely not doing that anymore. But come on. How many airlines have songs about how bad their service is? "United Breaks Guitars" went viral, for crying out loud. To be completely fair, though, anyone who flies with instruments knows they're all terrible and they all break stuff.)

This post is just befuddling to me.

First of all, for contextual purposes, it’s reported that United Airlines is going to resume twice daily flights from St Louis to SFO, UA’s transpacific hub. That is objectively a win for St Louis. Your response to that news, and to my posts heralding the importance of the resumption of those flights, has been to repeatedly slag United Airlines and then minimize SFO as an important transpacific hub. It’s a win for St Louis! Why are you minimizing it? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Then you claim in this post that we’re trading anecdotes. No, we’re not. Neither of us is providing any anecdotes.

I provided you with a fact-based argument for the primacy of United’s Asia Pacific transpacific hub by providing a comprehensive list of Asia Pacific airports that Delta and American don’t serve, with a particular emphasis on the fact that the resumed STL-SFO flights will provide one stop service to Singapore, an Alpha + city. Those are easily verifiable facts. You can just go online and confirm that what I wrote is true.

You, on the other hand, are not providing any anecdotes either. I would greatly appreciate it if you actually did provide some anecdotes. For example, you’ve repeatedly poor-mouthed United Airlines, but refuse to provide any specific details as to what you don’t like about the airline. That’s completely irresponsible. If you have had problems with United, please be specific and tell us what those problems were (i.e. provide us with anecdotes).

But you haven’t done that. You say that you’ll never fly UA, then say they’re just an airline, then you say you’re not being fair to them. Which is it? Trying to follow your logic is like watching a dog chasing its tail in circles. It’s completely nonsensical. Same thing with your criticism of SFO. You’re all over the place (bad, good indifferent), and again, no anecdotes. Huh? Seriously, what are you trying to say? I simply cannot follow your logic.

The only thing I am sure of is that you don't know what an anecdote is.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

I'll be on the inaugural flight next week. Looking forward to it. 

Surveying a few days over the next few months. One way fares, STL - YUL
05/02 (TH): Economy: 64% at $550,  Business: 42% $684 USD
05/06 (M):  Economy: 36% at $371,  Business: 0% $533 USD
05/08 (W): Economy: 30% at $371,  Business: 33% $533 USD
05/10 (F): Economy: 28% at $303,  Business: 33% $464 USD
05/13 (M): Economy: 48% at $460,  Business: 42% $594 USD
05/15 (W): Economy: 58% at $550,  Business: 42% $684USD
05/17 (F): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 83% $575USD
05/20 (M): Economy: 28% at $413,  Business: 33% $575USD
05/22 (W): Economy: 60% at $830,  Business: 75% $1019USD
05/24 (F): Economy: 77% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
05/27 (M): Economy: 20% at $331,  Business: 17% $492USD
05/29 (W):Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 0% $1019USD
05/31 (F): Economy: 74% at $550,  Business: 25% $684USD
06/03 (M): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 50% $575USD
06/05 (W): Economy: 26% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
06/07 (F): Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 59% $1019USD

It's only a 2 hour flight, why ticket prices so high from STL? Seems prices are always 2x+ times higher than other cities.

RuskiSTL wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

I'll be on the inaugural flight next week. Looking forward to it. 

Surveying a few days over the next few months. One way fares, STL - YUL
05/02 (TH): Economy: 64% at $550,  Business: 42% $684 USD
05/06 (M):  Economy: 36% at $371,  Business: 0% $533 USD
05/08 (W): Economy: 30% at $371,  Business: 33% $533 USD
05/10 (F): Economy: 28% at $303,  Business: 33% $464 USD
05/13 (M): Economy: 48% at $460,  Business: 42% $594 USD
05/15 (W): Economy: 58% at $550,  Business: 42% $684USD
05/17 (F): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 83% $575USD
05/20 (M): Economy: 28% at $413,  Business: 33% $575USD
05/22 (W): Economy: 60% at $830,  Business: 75% $1019USD
05/24 (F): Economy: 77% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
05/27 (M): Economy: 20% at $331,  Business: 17% $492USD
05/29 (W):Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 0% $1019USD
05/31 (F): Economy: 74% at $550,  Business: 25% $684USD
06/03 (M): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 50% $575USD
06/05 (W): Economy: 26% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
06/07 (F): Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 59% $1019USD

It's only a 2 hour flight, why ticket prices so high from STL? Seems prices are always 2x+ times higher than other cities.

It’s an “international” flight. Same person people from US walk to Tijuana airport (located along the border wall, and fly to Cancun

RuskiSTL wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

I'll be on the inaugural flight next week. Looking forward to it. 

Surveying a few days over the next few months. One way fares, STL - YUL
05/02 (TH): Economy: 64% at $550,  Business: 42% $684 USD
05/06 (M):  Economy: 36% at $371,  Business: 0% $533 USD
05/08 (W): Economy: 30% at $371,  Business: 33% $533 USD
05/10 (F): Economy: 28% at $303,  Business: 33% $464 USD
05/13 (M): Economy: 48% at $460,  Business: 42% $594 USD
05/15 (W): Economy: 58% at $550,  Business: 42% $684USD
05/17 (F): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 83% $575USD
05/20 (M): Economy: 28% at $413,  Business: 33% $575USD
05/22 (W): Economy: 60% at $830,  Business: 75% $1019USD
05/24 (F): Economy: 77% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
05/27 (M): Economy: 20% at $331,  Business: 17% $492USD
05/29 (W):Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 0% $1019USD
05/31 (F): Economy: 74% at $550,  Business: 25% $684USD
06/03 (M): Economy: 40% at $413,  Business: 50% $575USD
06/05 (W): Economy: 26% at $830,  Business: 100% $--USD
06/07 (F): Economy: 55% at $830,  Business: 59% $1019USD

It's only a 2 hour flight, why ticket prices so high from STL? Seems prices are always 2x+ times higher than other cities.

That’s the going rate for nonstop flights to Canada from non hub cities. If you look up PIT/IND/Nashville/Austin it’s all about the same price as us.

kota wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 24, 2024

^I'll assume you meant to have more zeroes as even I probably have thirty or so thousand lifetime miles on UA. (Admiteddly, they add up fast when you fly trans-Pac, so it's not that many flights. Six, I think?) I'm glad they've been good to you, and whatever my personal opinion of their customer service I'm glad the flight is there. It's useful. I don't think it's a game changer in terms of our connectivity, but it's a good solid addition. And of all the flights lost to Covid, it was the probably biggest hole still to be filled.

^^^As to the write up, I won't disagree that there are some routes where there are advantages. I listed one myself where it makes a very big difference. The point of contention isn't whether or not SFO is an important Pacific gateway, but whether it significantly improves Trans-Pacific connectivity out of St. Louis. Technically speaking it doesn't make any difference, since the route was served anyway. If you fly United it is absolutely an advantage. If you don't it clearly isn't. It improves some single booking itineraries, but I don't honestly know how many and I don't think cherry picking a few anecdotes proves anything. And a couple of examples you listed are served by other carriers from other airports: Cathay Pacific serves both Chicago and LAX from Hong Kong and partners with American. China Airlines flies from Taipei into the same and partners with Delta. So no, San Francisco doesn't really provide a unique connection to either of those. Maybe unique if you want to fly on an an aircraft with an N number, but . . . those are best avoided for reasons of food and service anyway.

Anyway, we're making anecdotal arguments. I'm not pretending to have done a careful study on this. I simply stated my personal impression of how much of a change this makes in answer to someone else's question. It's a thing with which I have some experience, having made about a dozen trans-Pacific flights. You disagree, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But you're not making a statistical argument, so I'm forced to assume that's all it is. And it's not even as though we really disagree by all that much. I admitted from the getgo that there are some advantages. You admit you can get to the biggest Asian destinations just as easily on other carriers. So we're just arguing impressions about the details. And to really solve that would require a fairly serious spreadsheet listing a lot of possible routes and connections and a whole lot more airlines than just the big American three. (And we'd have to figure out what things like "much" mean.)

It's a good flight. I'm glad it's back. I'm sorry if I pissed on your favorite airport. SFO is fine. It's an important Pacific gateway. It's not the one I choose to use, but there's nothing wrong with it that I noticed when last I flew through. 

(I'll even try to apologize for pissing on United, but . . . I admitted that's what I was doing and I really don't like them and I tried to at least make it obvious it was just an opinion and not even really well founded. I'll try. They're fine. They're an airline. They're perfectly safe and they'll get you there. And I'm not being completely fair to them as the last time I flew UA I as still doing the basic economy thing, and I am absolutely not doing that anymore. But come on. How many airlines have songs about how bad their service is? "United Breaks Guitars" went viral, for crying out loud. To be completely fair, though, anyone who flies with instruments knows they're all terrible and they all break stuff.)

This post is just befuddling to me.

First of all, for contextual purposes, it’s reported that United Airlines is going to resume twice daily flights from St Louis to SFO, UA’s transpacific hub. That is objectively a win for St Louis. Your response to that news, and to my posts heralding the importance of the resumption of those flights, has been to repeatedly slag United Airlines and then minimize SFO as an important transpacific hub. It’s a win for St Louis! Why are you minimizing it? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Then you claim in this post that we’re trading anecdotes. No, we’re not. Neither of us is providing any anecdotes.

I provided you with a fact-based argument for the primacy of United’s Asia Pacific transpacific hub by providing a comprehensive list of Asia Pacific airports that Delta and American don’t serve, with a particular emphasis on the fact that the resumed STL-SFO flights will provide one stop service to Singapore, an Alpha + city. Those are easily verifiable facts. You can just go online and confirm that what I wrote is true.

You, on the other hand, are not providing any anecdotes either. I would greatly appreciate it if you actually did provide some anecdotes. For example, you’ve repeatedly poor-mouthed United Airlines, but refuse to provide any specific details as to what you don’t like about the airline. That’s completely irresponsible. If you have had problems with United, please be specific and tell us what those problems were (i.e. provide us with anecdotes).

But you haven’t done that. You say that you’ll never fly UA, then say they’re just an airline, then you say you’re not being fair to them. Which is it? Trying to follow your logic is like watching a dog chasing its tail in circles. It’s completely nonsensical. Same thing with your criticism of SFO. You’re all over the place (bad, good indifferent), and again, no anecdotes. Huh? Seriously, what are you trying to say? I simply cannot follow your logic.

The only thing I am sure of is that you don't know what an anecdote is.

From an outside perspective his response just seems like a different opinion. He doesn't like UA, you seem to really think they are a big deal. In the same way I don't like bitter wines, and some people do like them. They don't need to provide a reason why, it's just a personal preferance. Maybe he doesn't like the color blue, or the fact that their partner AC gives faulty tickets when connecting to a UA flight and you get stuck overnight if the gate agent can't figure out what is going on.

 At the end of the day, I think we all are in agreement that more competition on a route is a win. Nothing wrong with that. 

StlO7 wrote: ↑

Apr 26, 2024

From an outside perspective his response just seems like a different opinion. He doesn't like UA, you seem to really think they are a big deal. In the same way I don't like bitter wines, and some people do like them. They don't need to provide a reason why, it's just a personal preferance. Maybe he doesn't like the color blue, or the fact that their partner AC gives faulty tickets when connecting to a UA flight and you get stuck overnight if the gate agent can't figure out what is going on.

 At the end of the day, I think we all are in agreement that more competition on a route is a win. Nothing wrong with that. 

Thank you. Yeah, that's about the size of it. I don't really want to convert anyone to another airline. I honestly think all the domestic carriers are a bit awful. They each have their strengths. (In my experience UA is typically cheapest. DL frequently has the best service. WN is usually the friendliest and most consistent. And AA is the biggest and probably goes the most places.) And they also each have their weaknesses. But in the end . . . fly the airline that works best for you. They're all basically fine. They're none of them magic. I threw some shade because I felt a bit talked down to, but it probably wasn't my most diplomatic moment. I'm willing to explain why I feel the way I do in a pm, but it's all very personal and quite off topic. And as every musician knows . . . they all break instruments if you check them, so make sure you're flying an airline where you can carry it on, even if you have to buy an extra ticket. (Or just rent an instrument for the gig at the destination.)

Anyway, I know I ought to let it lie, but I can't completely. 

kota wrote: The only thing I am sure of is that you don't know what an anecdote is.

An anecdote is evidence based on personal experience. It isn't carefully researched or comprehensive, but it also isn't necessarily false. Quite the opposite, I think it's usually true. This is, I believe, precisely what we've both done. What we each said was factually true. It wasn't necessarily a complete or thorough analysis of the local connection to East Asia, but it didn't need to be. It was just a quick answer to what I thought was a good question. I'm inclined to think our initial reactions are right more often than not, but I'm certainly no subject matter expert. Just an aviation enthusiast who flies to Asia to visit the in-laws a lot. (And sometimes bounces around a bit in the process, since . . . Asia is cool and there's good food over there.)

But we really could build a database of all the possible TransPac destinations and see what difference the SFO add makes to getting there. It won't technically add any new routes, since Southwest already serves SFO twice daily from here, but it will make some UA itineraries smoother. The only real question is how much difference that makes. Flight time and the number of connections is probably the most relevant thing here. Might also be worth adding some kind of weighting based on how many people from St. Louis use the relevant routes. (A lot of time saved on a very thin route probably isn't as important as a more modest amount saved on a very popular one.) JShank's tables are always pretty cool and they might serve as a good model for how to do it. We'd have to decide a couple of definitions first, but it should be doable to figure it out. If you want to do it I'm happy to help with the research.

But in the end, it's probably just easiest to agree that we're arguing about the definition of "much" in "Won't this make traveling east over the Pacific Ocean much more streamlined?" It will make traveling across the Pacific more streamlined. I think we can both agree on that. Whether the "more" amounts to "much" is . . . more sticky. Maybe much more sticky.

Sorry I pissed on UA. Sincerely. It was a mistake and it didn't help. I was annoyed and let that get out. And I honestly do think it's a good flight to have back. (I also want JFK back. My very first flight ever was a TWA L-1011 from Yamasaki's thinshell concrete dome to Saarinen's.)

 I will be so glad to have more direct connection to United's pacific network.  Every additional connection to international hubs via the carriers that operate or directly partner with the operator is a dramatic improvement especially in terms of flexibility of scheduling.

Any route that requires switching between carriers that do not partner or codeshare is not something I would consider unless it was absolutely necessary, and that is generally only in very remote countries.

Speaking of United.

We could have three United 777s on the ground tomorrow. One diverted due to smoke in the cabin. The rescue plane, which came in from Houston, was smoking on takeoff and returned back to STL. A third coming in from LAX overnight.

^Seeing all those diversions was crazy. Did anyone manage to get pictures? I saw the notices in the middle of the night.

Two items on the Board of Public Service agenda related to the design of T2 baggage claim expansion. Hopefully this means the design is done and they can get moving on it.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 0-2024.pdf

2 new carousels will be in a new building there. The existing 2 are getting revamped too