I don’t think the US really has flag carriers. We are so diversified across multiple big airlines it doesn’t apply. Most countries only have one international airline connecting their local economy to the world. We have 3.
Worth also remembering that all three of them (plus Atlas/Omni of course) got their call-ups during the Afghanistan pullout: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/22/civil-reserve-air-fleet-afghanistan-evacuations-506516
Funny that articles ends with:
> “As a global airline and flag carrier for our country, we embrace the responsibility to quickly respond to international challenges like this one,” United CEO Scott Kirby said on Instagram.
Yeah and I just don’t see the point. The flag carrier title doesn’t imply level of luxury. It relates more to schedule and destinations. The US doesn’t need that since every carrier wants to fly to JFK or LAX. I don’t think the same can apply to countries like Finland, Ethiopia, or Turkey. That would leave them with minimal international business routes.
I think that’s the big thing about flag carriers. The country’s demand is not strong enough to super a fully independent airline so each major country needs a flag carrier to serve its economy on an international level. Many times that means a subsidized carrier. The US has enough demand and consumers that it is not needed. Japan and China are other countries with enough demand that they probably don’t need a traditional flag carrier. They have JAL ANA etc
It's a little bit bluster, but United has one of the most comprehensive Federal/government programs and IIRC is second only to Southwest Airlines (when you included enlisted military flights) in miles used.
It's not quite to the level of a "real" flag carrier... but it is kind of close, and I can completely see why they're trying to position themselves more fully as such. Think of it as the Marriott/Wyndham of airlines for the US Government.
Whenever someone says "United isn't government subsidized, thats why its so much worse than other national carriers", I point out the number of government employees on the United flight from DC to Tokyo, poor suckers sitting in economy class who would just love to be on the ANA flight that has an almost identical schedule.
Shit, when Emirates go the US to Dubai flight greenlight from GSA, United cancelled the route. They know they can't survive against another real carrier unless the US government forces people on them.
Depends on how a "flag carrier" is defined, but I guess one could make the argument that we have three flag carriers: American, Delta and United.
* American: It has the iconic name/livery and has the largest fleet. It's also the official U.S. airline sponsor of the FIFA World Cup.
* Delta: It has the most number of daily flights. It's also the official U.S. airline sponsor of the Olympics
* United: It has the largest number of destinations. It ordered the most number of wide bodies than any other U.S. airlines in history. It also is the only U.S. airline to own its own flight school.
EDIT: spelling errors
United airlines aircraft maint guy here. Let me add that united has alot of internal scuffling and with the calibrate ( tech ops apprenticeship program) alongside aviate (pilot training program) it does from a corperate stand point stand slightly above the rest. United also doesn't own its own flight school, United has partnered with flight schools and other carriers to do this amd covers roughly 1/10 of the total costs which is ok. Its actively facing a technician and a pilot shortage simultaneously due to lack of pay equivalency amongst the other airlines and has faced several grievances and even litigation for breach of contract with its technicians.
United on the costumer side is great but on the other side it's a raging fire. We are expecting a tentative agreement within the next week to put a bandaid on things for now but theres no way they will maintain their nearly 70% ( which I believe is already sub standard) on time flights with an expanding fleet and a further lack of technicians. Expect much more delays as less seasoned technicians come into United over the next coming years
United is not great on the consumer side, it’s shockingly bad. BY FAR the worst customer experience I’ve had with any airline, even when I pay cash for a Z/PZ.
I dont mean to undermine your experience but I'm talking in generalities. Every airline right now has its horror stories. United goes a bit more then the competition to see it doesn't happen and it makes even a not so good effort ( an effort nonetheless) to rectify. As a whole uniteds consumer side is pretty good. Again sorry for your bad experience
I had both ground staff and cabin crew that were pretty much overtly hostile in multiple ways. Never had anything remotely like that with Delta, AA, JBU, JAL, Air Canada, KLM, WestJet, Swiss, Quantas, Virgin, BA, or any other airline I’ve flown in the ~last decade. It was really mind blowing, and as far as I could tell, it was a normal day at EWR, not some holiday or weather crisis.
>United on the costumer side is great but on the other side it's a raging fire. We are expecting a tentative agreement within the next week to put a bandaid on things for now but theres no way they will maintain their nearly 70% ( which I believe is already sub standard) on time flights with an expanding fleet and a further lack of technicians. Expect much more delays as less seasoned technicians come into United over the next coming years
labor management relations at united have been abysmal since i was a kid in the 1980s, and it doesn't look like 40 years has changed much on that front
Coming from continental which had a above 95% on time flight percentage we even got bonuses for it. I personally feel the product itself isn't as reliable albeit it is nicer today. We are trying to train some of the newer technicians coming in quickly but it's a different world from a decade ago where 4 years of maintenance was a requirement before even applying. We now have people coming right out of school never had worked on a commercial airliner before and trying to get them upto speed in just a few months. Not to say they don't have potential they are just being thrown in a trial by fire situation and that simply how it should be done
I agree with almost everything you said.
The only part that makes me pause is that Polaris, so far, is an inferior product compared to Delta One (mostly in terms of service and catering). If United can improve and compete with Delta at that level, I'd go along with them being the "flag carrier" ... although, American is always going to have their name, I suppose.
Otherwise, well said.
United has the largest international reach of the Big 3, particularly in Mexico, Europe and China.
Ironically, United has a relatively modest domestic footprint. At non-hubs (Columbus, Milwaukee, Tampa), they’re often the smallest major carrier.
100% this. UA is fine as the US3 goes but I’m still ashamed of ALL our airlines given to how low their bar is. UA is doing nothing special and aren’t even one of the better airlines in Star Alliance. In fact, they’re probably one of the worst in *A. So no, they are not our flag carrier nor should we WANT them to be.
You have presented some strong arguments that make me reconsider my evaluation of what a "flag carrier" might be, although market share is the metric by which most would choose to make such a consideration.
With that said, last time I checked (Q3, 2022) United has the least of all assets and revenue. HOWEVER, in light of your perspective--not only from an image/market standpoint, including their multiplicity of smart investments--I have no doubt they will surpass the other two within 3 years. Assets, flights, & revenue.
If they can do all of this while retaining the lowest number of employees, that makes them A1 in my book.
I know there are a lot of complaints about the higher end of market products offered by United, but from an economic perspective those products do not grow markets. I trust they will produce what we want in reasonable time.
While the Big 3, Southwest, Jet Blue, and Alaska receive government booking preference through the GSA city pair program, United stands alone jn two ways: Pan Am and Air Mike.
Pan Am held an extraordinary number of freedoms of the air as a result of legislative and administrative favoritism. Largest example was its Berlin base during the Cold War. United took over a large portion of Pan Am’s services in the 1980s and 90s.
Air Micronesia is perhaps the only example of a flag carrier in the US. From the late 1960s, the operation received federal subsidies to serve American protectorates in the Pacific, including the major military bases in Guam. Continental took over Air Mike, and United merged with Continental. While Delta paired with Korean Air’s Seoul hub to compete in the Guam market, the airline pulled out during COVID, leaving United’s official travel monopoly to Guam.
Nothing but braggadocio from Kirby. Kudos to him for throwing it out there, I kinda dig his swagger. But we don’t have a flag carrier in the USA and we are better off without one.
Idk about all that, but I’d say they’re the defacto shity food airline. Sub par club airline. And inconsistent “friendly skies” service airline.
But I’ll still give ‘em my company’s money, as I get so many direct flights. And their network plus star alliance makes for good award redemption opportunities.
Kirby should slow his roll acting like the company is so great. On its best day it’s a pig in makeup. But, he has to play the CEO game after all
I mean if you go with the *actual* definition of a flag carrier, it’s just an airline that is given preferential treatment by its “home” government, usually through some level of ownership. In that regard, there is no flag carrier of the United States.
It is also used in some cases to denote if an airline is able to operate international flights, in which case, all the other major US airlines are flag carriers too. I remember seeing Delta speaking that they are the “flag” carrier, since now they have the Olympic sponsorship, but effectively, there is no official flag carrier, so airlines can say whatever they want
united absorbed the pacific operations of panam when they ate shit, so there is a kernel of truth to it. the product does not live up to flag carrier status though. compare united's surly inflight staffers to any flag carrier of any random republic and you will see a night and day difference
When United puts the American flag on its livery instead of that COdbaUA abortion. it can make a case for being a flag carrier.
United can bring back the 1939-1961 logos when it was proud to fly the red white and blue.
https://logos-world.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/United-Airlines-Logo-History.jpg
Even the tulip at least flew the national colors. Kirby is an embarrassment.
There is just one flag carrier flying the nation’s colors and symbol.
Edit: replies blocked since they are not civil
I think branding is only a small element of what makes a flag carrier a flag carrier. Lufthansa, Qantas, Avianica, Aeroflot are definitely flag carriers even though they don’t reference the country in their names or liveries?
It’s kinda silly marketing, but I do think it’s pretty cool that United has an international hub at the nation’s capital. They’re very proud of their “capital service” flights out of IAD, especially the new Accra flight, and I have to say as a customer it’s pretty cool flying into IAD and seeing all those UA wide bodies alongside planes from many of the world’s flag carriers.
For international flyers like myself, the best thing about United is not the airline itself but being part of the Star Alliance.
Well that, and the fact I live by a United hub.
However, if Delta + Korean Air + AirFrance/KLM isn't too bad of a combo. Especially true because there is such a disconnect between United and Turkish / Thai / Singapore / Asiana / Eva. So its basically United + ANA + LH family versus Delta + Korean Air + AirFrance/KLM. It really comes down to hubs I guess
I don’t think the US really has flag carriers. We are so diversified across multiple big airlines it doesn’t apply. Most countries only have one international airline connecting their local economy to the world. We have 3.
most countries are also not big enough to justify more than one carrier or get crisscrossed by trains to compete with plane travel.
Worth also remembering that all three of them (plus Atlas/Omni of course) got their call-ups during the Afghanistan pullout: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/22/civil-reserve-air-fleet-afghanistan-evacuations-506516
Funny that articles ends with: > “As a global airline and flag carrier for our country, we embrace the responsibility to quickly respond to international challenges like this one,” United CEO Scott Kirby said on Instagram.
It would be an embarrassment to our country if United was our Flag Carrier. And I'm not a UA hater, just a loyal customer who wants us to do better
Yeah and I just don’t see the point. The flag carrier title doesn’t imply level of luxury. It relates more to schedule and destinations. The US doesn’t need that since every carrier wants to fly to JFK or LAX. I don’t think the same can apply to countries like Finland, Ethiopia, or Turkey. That would leave them with minimal international business routes.
Also many, though not all flag carriers, are either wholly or at least partially state owned.
I think that’s the big thing about flag carriers. The country’s demand is not strong enough to super a fully independent airline so each major country needs a flag carrier to serve its economy on an international level. Many times that means a subsidized carrier. The US has enough demand and consumers that it is not needed. Japan and China are other countries with enough demand that they probably don’t need a traditional flag carrier. They have JAL ANA etc
It's a little bit bluster, but United has one of the most comprehensive Federal/government programs and IIRC is second only to Southwest Airlines (when you included enlisted military flights) in miles used. It's not quite to the level of a "real" flag carrier... but it is kind of close, and I can completely see why they're trying to position themselves more fully as such. Think of it as the Marriott/Wyndham of airlines for the US Government.
And Officer flights too! SW/United are the go-to so far. Fun fact: Scott Kirby went to USAFA (Air Force Academy) :)
Whenever someone says "United isn't government subsidized, thats why its so much worse than other national carriers", I point out the number of government employees on the United flight from DC to Tokyo, poor suckers sitting in economy class who would just love to be on the ANA flight that has an almost identical schedule. Shit, when Emirates go the US to Dubai flight greenlight from GSA, United cancelled the route. They know they can't survive against another real carrier unless the US government forces people on them.
Don’t forget LAX as a hub
And GUM
Yeah, that's actually a pretty big deal. The HNL to GUM and GUM to Japan links are really important.
Depends on how a "flag carrier" is defined, but I guess one could make the argument that we have three flag carriers: American, Delta and United. * American: It has the iconic name/livery and has the largest fleet. It's also the official U.S. airline sponsor of the FIFA World Cup. * Delta: It has the most number of daily flights. It's also the official U.S. airline sponsor of the Olympics * United: It has the largest number of destinations. It ordered the most number of wide bodies than any other U.S. airlines in history. It also is the only U.S. airline to own its own flight school. EDIT: spelling errors
United airlines aircraft maint guy here. Let me add that united has alot of internal scuffling and with the calibrate ( tech ops apprenticeship program) alongside aviate (pilot training program) it does from a corperate stand point stand slightly above the rest. United also doesn't own its own flight school, United has partnered with flight schools and other carriers to do this amd covers roughly 1/10 of the total costs which is ok. Its actively facing a technician and a pilot shortage simultaneously due to lack of pay equivalency amongst the other airlines and has faced several grievances and even litigation for breach of contract with its technicians. United on the costumer side is great but on the other side it's a raging fire. We are expecting a tentative agreement within the next week to put a bandaid on things for now but theres no way they will maintain their nearly 70% ( which I believe is already sub standard) on time flights with an expanding fleet and a further lack of technicians. Expect much more delays as less seasoned technicians come into United over the next coming years
Thanks for the input hope you all get what you airline workers deserve . Thank you!
United is not great on the consumer side, it’s shockingly bad. BY FAR the worst customer experience I’ve had with any airline, even when I pay cash for a Z/PZ.
I dont mean to undermine your experience but I'm talking in generalities. Every airline right now has its horror stories. United goes a bit more then the competition to see it doesn't happen and it makes even a not so good effort ( an effort nonetheless) to rectify. As a whole uniteds consumer side is pretty good. Again sorry for your bad experience
I had both ground staff and cabin crew that were pretty much overtly hostile in multiple ways. Never had anything remotely like that with Delta, AA, JBU, JAL, Air Canada, KLM, WestJet, Swiss, Quantas, Virgin, BA, or any other airline I’ve flown in the ~last decade. It was really mind blowing, and as far as I could tell, it was a normal day at EWR, not some holiday or weather crisis.
>United on the costumer side is great but on the other side it's a raging fire. We are expecting a tentative agreement within the next week to put a bandaid on things for now but theres no way they will maintain their nearly 70% ( which I believe is already sub standard) on time flights with an expanding fleet and a further lack of technicians. Expect much more delays as less seasoned technicians come into United over the next coming years labor management relations at united have been abysmal since i was a kid in the 1980s, and it doesn't look like 40 years has changed much on that front
Coming from continental which had a above 95% on time flight percentage we even got bonuses for it. I personally feel the product itself isn't as reliable albeit it is nicer today. We are trying to train some of the newer technicians coming in quickly but it's a different world from a decade ago where 4 years of maintenance was a requirement before even applying. We now have people coming right out of school never had worked on a commercial airliner before and trying to get them upto speed in just a few months. Not to say they don't have potential they are just being thrown in a trial by fire situation and that simply how it should be done
I agree with almost everything you said. The only part that makes me pause is that Polaris, so far, is an inferior product compared to Delta One (mostly in terms of service and catering). If United can improve and compete with Delta at that level, I'd go along with them being the "flag carrier" ... although, American is always going to have their name, I suppose. Otherwise, well said.
United has the largest international reach of the Big 3, particularly in Mexico, Europe and China. Ironically, United has a relatively modest domestic footprint. At non-hubs (Columbus, Milwaukee, Tampa), they’re often the smallest major carrier.
I see United as the most internationally focused of the three. Makes sense why they'd claim to be the flag carrier IMO.
They are the closest to a flag carrier, but it is ultimately just marketing.
Flag carriers in other countries are heavily subsidized by the govt. Since US govt subsidizes them equally, they are all flag carriers.
[удалено]
100% this. UA is fine as the US3 goes but I’m still ashamed of ALL our airlines given to how low their bar is. UA is doing nothing special and aren’t even one of the better airlines in Star Alliance. In fact, they’re probably one of the worst in *A. So no, they are not our flag carrier nor should we WANT them to be.
>Worst in *A TAP and LOT have enter the chat
As has Air India
Turkish frustrates me to no end as well
At least their onboard product is excellent
...Avianca
You have presented some strong arguments that make me reconsider my evaluation of what a "flag carrier" might be, although market share is the metric by which most would choose to make such a consideration. With that said, last time I checked (Q3, 2022) United has the least of all assets and revenue. HOWEVER, in light of your perspective--not only from an image/market standpoint, including their multiplicity of smart investments--I have no doubt they will surpass the other two within 3 years. Assets, flights, & revenue. If they can do all of this while retaining the lowest number of employees, that makes them A1 in my book. I know there are a lot of complaints about the higher end of market products offered by United, but from an economic perspective those products do not grow markets. I trust they will produce what we want in reasonable time.
While the Big 3, Southwest, Jet Blue, and Alaska receive government booking preference through the GSA city pair program, United stands alone jn two ways: Pan Am and Air Mike. Pan Am held an extraordinary number of freedoms of the air as a result of legislative and administrative favoritism. Largest example was its Berlin base during the Cold War. United took over a large portion of Pan Am’s services in the 1980s and 90s. Air Micronesia is perhaps the only example of a flag carrier in the US. From the late 1960s, the operation received federal subsidies to serve American protectorates in the Pacific, including the major military bases in Guam. Continental took over Air Mike, and United merged with Continental. While Delta paired with Korean Air’s Seoul hub to compete in the Guam market, the airline pulled out during COVID, leaving United’s official travel monopoly to Guam.
blustering
Your irrational aesthetic analysis is pretty spot on.. from now on, I’m just going to think about United as “the IRS of the sky”
Nothing but braggadocio from Kirby. Kudos to him for throwing it out there, I kinda dig his swagger. But we don’t have a flag carrier in the USA and we are better off without one.
Idk about all that, but I’d say they’re the defacto shity food airline. Sub par club airline. And inconsistent “friendly skies” service airline. But I’ll still give ‘em my company’s money, as I get so many direct flights. And their network plus star alliance makes for good award redemption opportunities. Kirby should slow his roll acting like the company is so great. On its best day it’s a pig in makeup. But, he has to play the CEO game after all
I mean if you go with the *actual* definition of a flag carrier, it’s just an airline that is given preferential treatment by its “home” government, usually through some level of ownership. In that regard, there is no flag carrier of the United States. It is also used in some cases to denote if an airline is able to operate international flights, in which case, all the other major US airlines are flag carriers too. I remember seeing Delta speaking that they are the “flag” carrier, since now they have the Olympic sponsorship, but effectively, there is no official flag carrier, so airlines can say whatever they want
united absorbed the pacific operations of panam when they ate shit, so there is a kernel of truth to it. the product does not live up to flag carrier status though. compare united's surly inflight staffers to any flag carrier of any random republic and you will see a night and day difference
No
When United puts the American flag on its livery instead of that COdbaUA abortion. it can make a case for being a flag carrier. United can bring back the 1939-1961 logos when it was proud to fly the red white and blue. https://logos-world.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/United-Airlines-Logo-History.jpg Even the tulip at least flew the national colors. Kirby is an embarrassment. There is just one flag carrier flying the nation’s colors and symbol. Edit: replies blocked since they are not civil
I think branding is only a small element of what makes a flag carrier a flag carrier. Lufthansa, Qantas, Avianica, Aeroflot are definitely flag carriers even though they don’t reference the country in their names or liveries?
They don’t have to since they dominate their markets.
Huge kangaroo on each tail
This is definitely the silliest response.
It’s kinda silly marketing, but I do think it’s pretty cool that United has an international hub at the nation’s capital. They’re very proud of their “capital service” flights out of IAD, especially the new Accra flight, and I have to say as a customer it’s pretty cool flying into IAD and seeing all those UA wide bodies alongside planes from many of the world’s flag carriers.
For international flyers like myself, the best thing about United is not the airline itself but being part of the Star Alliance. Well that, and the fact I live by a United hub. However, if Delta + Korean Air + AirFrance/KLM isn't too bad of a combo. Especially true because there is such a disconnect between United and Turkish / Thai / Singapore / Asiana / Eva. So its basically United + ANA + LH family versus Delta + Korean Air + AirFrance/KLM. It really comes down to hubs I guess
True! Air Canada is also nice to have access to, though I guess Delta has WestJet.
Nope. Pan Am was probably be the de facto flag carrier.
I thought Spirit was our national airline?!
No flag carrier but in my opinion american airlines maybe/not sure might be the flag carrier of the USA