United Airlines adds Thailand, Vietnam and Australia flights in latest expansion
In the expansion, United is using a tactic that's unusual in its network: Its airplanes from Los Angeles and San Francisco that are headed for Hong Kong will then go on to the two new destinations. The Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, service is set to begin on Oct. 26.
On Oct. 25, United plans to add a second daily nonstop flight from San Francisco to Manila, Philippines, and on Dec. 11, it will launch nonstops from San Francisco to Adelaide, Australia, which will operate three days a week.
The carrier has aggressively been adding far-flung destinations not served by rivals to its routes, like Nuuk, Greenland, and Bilbao, Spain, which start later this year. Getting the mix right is especially important as carriers seek to grow their lucrative loyalty programs and need attractive destinations to keep customers spending.
Bangkok, in particular, 'is in even more demand now given the popularity of 'White Lotus,'' Patrick Quayle, United's senior vice president of network and global alliances, said of the HBO show.
He said the carrier isn't planning on cutting any international routes for its upcoming winter schedule.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Delta, United sued for selling windowless 'window seats'
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), opens new tab and United Airlines (UAL.O), opens new tab were sued on Tuesday by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit in "window" seats, only to find themselves placed in seats next to a blank wall. Proposed class actions were filed against United in San Francisco federal court and against Delta in Brooklyn, New York federal court, seeking millions of dollars of damages for more than 1 million passengers at each carrier. The complaints say some Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and Airbus A321 planes contain seats that would normally contain windows, but lack them because of the placement of air conditioning ducts, electrical conduits or other components. Passengers said Delta and United do not flag these seats during the booking process, unlike rivals such as Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), opens new tab and American Airlines (AAL.O), opens new tab, even when charging tens or occasionally hundreds of dollars for them. The lawsuits say people buy window seats for several reasons including to address fear of flying or motion sickness, keep a child occupied, get extra light or watch the world go by. "Had plaintiffs and the class members known that the seats they were purchasing (were) windowless, they would not have selected them — much less have paid extra," the United complaint said. The Delta complaint contained similar language. Delta is based in Atlanta, and United in Chicago. Neither immediately responded to requests for comment. Ancillary revenue from seat selection, baggage fees, cabin upgrades, airport lounges and other services help carriers generate more cash when they fly while keeping base fares lower. The Delta lawsuit is led by Nicholas Meyer of Brooklyn, and the United lawsuit is led by Marc Brenman of San Francisco and Aviva Copaken of Los Angeles. Copaken said United refunded fees for her windowless seats on two flights, but not a third. Passengers can use websites such as SeatGuru to find pluses and minuses of specific seats, including those lacking windows. Carter Greenbaum, a lawyer whose firm filed the two lawsuits, said the ability to find information from third party websites doesn't excuse Delta's and United's conduct. "A company can't misrepresent the nature of the products it sells and then rely on third party reviews to say a customer should have known that it was lying," he said in an email. The cases are Meyer v Delta Air Lines Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 25-04608; and Brenman et al v United Airlines Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of San Francisco, No. 25-06995.
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Heritage organisations warn PM of crippling cost of membership law
Some of Britain's leading cultural institutions including the National Trust have warned the prime minister that they face being 'crippled' by new consumer rights rules. The legislation could be catastrophic for the business models of charities and museums because it contains a 'loophole' allowing abuse of their financially important membership schemes. Charity membership schemes will be subject to a 'two-week cooling off period', allowing people to cancel them and get a refund, under the provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA). The heads of the National Trust, Tate, Historic Royal Palaces and other organisations wrote to Sir Keir Starmer on July 31, saying charities must be treated differently to commercial organisations. They warned Starmer in a letter leaked to The Times that the legislation puts in jeopardy the entire relationship 'between government and civil society'. When the law is enacted next year, somebody could buy an annual Tate membership on a Saturday morning for £120, which would automatically grant them and a guest free access to paid-for exhibitions even if they were sold out. That Saturday they could visit the Emily Kam Kngwarray, Do Ho Suh and Leigh Bowery exhibitions at Tate Modern — which would cost non-members £60 in total — and visit the Edward Burra show down the river at Tate Britain, costing £18, before resigning their membership the following day. They would then be refunded the entirety of their £120, having saved themselves £78 in entry fees. They could also have used a 10 per cent discount at Tate's shops and had access to its members' rooms. A National Trust annual family membership costs £168.60 and the family members could, for example, visit Waddesdon Manor and Cliveden, an hour's drive away, before resigning their membership and recouping their fee. A family of two adults and two children who were not members would normally pay £105 for these two visits. In the letter to the prime minister the leaders of the organisations said the DMCCA would create significant legal and administrative risks. 'Not only has it put at risk our ability to claim gift aid on memberships, but it creates onerous new burdens,' the signatories, led by Hilary McGrady, the National Trust's director-general, wrote. 'The proposed cooling-off period would create a loophole that could allow people to join charities as members and enjoy benefits, such as free entry to sites, for a two-week period before claiming substantial refunds for the rest of the year. 'This threatens to cripple the very future value of membership itself as a functional model of income generation for charities with visitor models — currently worth hundreds of millions [of pounds] to charities across the UK every year,' the letter, also signed by the heads of the Victoria & Albert Museum, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, said. The leaking of the letter indicates a growing frustration at the Labour government from within the arts and heritage sector. One insider said they had been fruitlessly battling the government for months to try to secure an exemption for charities, adding that implementation of the provisions would be 'catastrophic'. Membership schemes have become hugely important for museums and galleries during the past 15 years as state funding has decreased dramatically and corporate sponsors have been deterred by activist campaigns against private sponsors such as fossil fuel companies. • Can Britain's museums remain free for much longer? The DMCCA, introduced by the previous Conservative government and being enacted by Labour, is intended to provide protections for consumers signing up to, for example, digital media subscriptions. In September last year the government minister Justin Madders confirmed that Labour would be proceeding with the legislation, which received royal assent under the Conservatives. The provisions affecting charity memberships are intended to target so-called 'subscription traps' where people are 'misled' into signing up for a free, or reduced-price trial and then end up stuck with a costly subscription, the government said previously. Madders said it would 'protect small businesses, save consumers money, boost innovation and drive growth'. The Department for Business and Trade said of the act last November: 'Subscriptions can be for anything from magazines to beauty boxes, with many subscriptions having complicated or inconvenient cancellation processes such as phone lines with long waits and restrictive opening hours that can leave consumers feeling trapped.' • Why can't we fund the National Gallery without help from China? The letter to Starmer, also signed by the Woodland Trust and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states that, as charities, their work is 'in support of the wider public good' and 'not a private service that can only be purchased for the individual enjoyment of customers'. It added: 'The public benefit we deliver as a result of the relationship between us as charities and our members has long been reflected in law and by HMRC, differentiating between charitable memberships and subscriptions for commercial services such as gym memberships, and acknowledging their status as charitable donations, not subscriptions to goods or services.' The Department for Business and Trade has been contacted for comment.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
How Rachel Reeves can raise money and also make the tax system fairer
The chancellor is missing an open goal by looking at inheritance tax while searching for the elusive billions needed to fix Britain (Treasury targeting inheritance tax reforms to help plug UK deficit, 12 August). The tax needs significant reform to make it fit for the 21st century, but it isn't the magic bullet the government is after. At the budget, Rachel Reeves could generate tens of billions of pounds by making tax changes that are overwhelmingly popular with the public and would be paid only by those with the broadest shoulders. Three-quarters of us want a wealth tax on net fortunes over £10m (backed by world-leading economists). Equalising capital gains tax with income tax is favoured by the majority too. The problem is that currently there's a Britain for the haves, and a Britain for the have-nots. If you get an income from extreme wealth (often inherited or accumulated through 'passive assets' such as property or investment), you get preferential treatment over people who work as a cleaner or a nurse, or in a warehouse or classroom. Just look at when Rishi Sunak released his tax return. He is from one of the UK's 350 richest families, yet paid the same effective tax rate as an average teacher, despite having income more than 50 times higher. That doesn't sound fair to me, and it won't sound fair to millions of people across the country who are struggling to get by and fed up with politics working for the rich and powerful over everyone BoswellHead of advocacy and policy, Tax Justice UK Labour clearly has the interests of the 1% at heart above all others. Inheritance tax is hated by most; it appears to be a tax on ambition. Work all your life and, when you die, the government comes along and helps itself. In contrast, it is easy for the 1% to avoid it, using trusts, hiding assets offshore and there are even insurance policies that pay out if your estate is hit by IHT. Yes we need a wealth tax, but an even easier choice is simply to equalise capital gains and dividend tax rates with income tax and national insurance, and remove the additional capital gains and dividend tax allowances, so everyone gets a single £12,570 personal BowserHolmer Green, Buckinghamshire Amazingly, there are people who think somebody earning £20,000 a year should pay tax, while people who inherit £200,000 shouldn't. Alan FairsBewdley, Worcestershire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
