Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4103219/

Topic: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: PanAm747LHR
Posted 2008-08-11 12:50:00 and read 13248 times.

Hi everyone-
Now that Continental is joining the Star Alliance, I was wondering how our very "Sky-Centric" network will change. I can guarantee that you won't see 4 daily flights to AMS during the summer anymore (2x EWR and 2x IAH) or 5 daily flights to CDG (3x EWR 1x IAH and 1x CLE)

Maybe we'll finally see some IAH-FRA service, and perhaps 2x daily EWR-FRA service to connect with LH? Maybe an increase in ZRH service, or better yet we'll get MUC back! What about year round EWR-YVR service to connect with AC? With MS and TK being new Star entrants, I'd LOVE to see some EWR-CAI and or EWR-IST service.

Feel free to speculate, and of course if any of you have heard anything yet, let us know!

Happy Flying,
Nick

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: MMEPHX
Posted 2008-08-11 13:02:55 and read 13194 times.

I can see some level of service to AMS being maintained to provide access to such a large trading center for CO flyers in EWR and IAH, and access to the EWR/IAH hubs from AMS, same with CDG service. CLE is the big loser in all this, as I can't see CLE supporting those destinations without some connection capability in AMS/CDG.

EWR/IAH service to Germany is almost a guarantee I would imagine, again CLE could be out on a limb here unless a 1X Daily CLE-FRA could work with the LH connections.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: STT757
Posted 2008-08-11 13:04:35 and read 13178 times.

I don't think you will see much change with EWR-CDG, it's an important route and with no more DL operating NYC-Paris I think it only helps CO. I also don't see any change with EWR-AMS, IAH-AMS might go single daily from double daily.

EWR-FRA Xs daily
EWR-MUC
EWR-DUS?..

IAH-FRA
IAH-MUC

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: PanAm747LHR
Posted 2008-08-11 13:15:35 and read 13064 times.



Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 1):
I can see some level of service to AMS being maintained to provide access to such a large trading center for CO flyers in EWR and IAH, and access to the EWR/IAH hubs from AMS, same with CDG service. CLE is the big loser in all this, as I can't see CLE supporting those destinations without some connection capability in AMS/CDG.

I absolutely agree - I'm sure we'll see both AMS and CDG maintained, but at what levels. I also certainly don't see the CLE-CDG run being maintained. I can see maybe 2x EWR-CDG and 1x IAH-CDG, but that's it. As for AMS, I think we'll see 1-2x EWR-AMS, and that's it. I wouldn't be surprised to see IAH-AMS get axed in favor of service to a Star Hub.

Nick

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: FlyDreamliner
Posted 2008-08-11 13:17:18 and read 13067 times.

I think we'll see star carriers move even moreso from JFK to EWR. We'll see TK move IST-JFK to IST-EWR, likewise Egyptair moving CAI-JFK to CAI-EWR. We'll see more connectivity into LH/SWISS europe network, and maybe even ICN connection on Asiana from JFK go to EWR.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: AS739X
Posted 2008-08-11 13:21:50 and read 13016 times.

Do you see the possibility of Cleveland service to LGW being switched to FRA?

ASSFO

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: PanAm747LHR
Posted 2008-08-11 13:24:24 and read 12996 times.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 4):
I think we'll see star carriers move even moreso from JFK to EWR. We'll see TK move IST-JFK to IST-EWR, likewise Egyptair moving CAI-JFK to CAI-EWR. We'll see more connectivity into LH/SWISS europe network, and maybe even ICN connection on Asiana from JFK go to EWR.

Can you imagine seeing OZ, TK and MS all at EWR?! Terminal B will become quite an interesting place for spotters! (Although where they'll find the check-in counter space, I don't know - BA has already moved downstairs.)

Quoting AS739X (Reply 5):
Do you see the possibility of Cleveland service to LGW being switched to FRA?

The LGW service out of CLE pretty much sustains itself during the summer, without the help of SkyTeam. However, I definitely think that CLE-CDG could be axed in favor of CLE-FRA, if the 757s can handle it...

Nick

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2008-08-11 14:48:35 and read 12700 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 6):
in favor of CLE-FRA, if the 757s can handle it...

They can't, can they? For some reason, I think that's too far....

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: American 767
Posted 2008-08-11 14:52:19 and read 12679 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 6):
CLE-FRA, if the 757s can handle it...

If the 752 cannot handle it with a full pax/cargo load then the aircraft assigned on that route will the the 764ER or 762ER if the load factors are too low on the 764ER for that routing to be profitable.

I also think that UA will completely pull out of JFK and make EWR a mini hub, in other words a focus city like LAX is for UA and AA. I believe that out of EWR, UA flies to LHR, IAD (United Express), MIA, ORD, DEN, LAX and SFO. Maybe United will add a second daily EWR-LHR and a nonstop service EWR-NRT.

JFK will be dominated by AA, DL and B6 needless to say.

Ben Soriano

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Aisak
Posted 2008-08-11 15:05:44 and read 12572 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 6):
The LGW service out of CLE pretty much sustains itself during the summer, without the help of SkyTeam. However, I definitely think that CLE-CDG could be axed in favor of CLE-FRA, if the 757s can handle it...

I've always though Paris to be a guaranted route from the US. It's Paris! I've always seen it for the US like NYC for Europe or MIA for Lat-Am: a must.
Ok, CO will lose the feed from AF but it's not like landing in the middle of nowhere. If CDG-CLE doesn't fill the cabin on its own, there's CO itself at CLE and several European/shorthaul carriers at CDG-T1 "under one roof" with some destinations available: FRA, HAM, MUC, DUS, TXL ,CGN, STR, ZRH, CPH, OSL, IST, WAW, ARN, OPO, LIS.... Definitely more connections than LGW, and it's a 757-200, not a big plane to fill.
I see more O/D and more O/D load factor with a 757-200 doing CLE-CDG. FRA would need a larger (with longer range = more expensive) plane and I don't see so many O/D passengers. LH would be flying it.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: RwSEA
Posted 2008-08-11 15:10:15 and read 12546 times.



Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
I also think that UA will completely pull out of JFK and make EWR a mini hub, in other words a focus city like LAX is for UA and AA.

Disagree. UA keeps JFK open purely because of their extremely profitable SFO/LAX-JFK service. EWR does not command the yields that JFK does when it comes to the SFO/LAX market.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Travelin man
Posted 2008-08-11 15:16:52 and read 12504 times.



Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
I also think that UA will completely pull out of JFK and make EWR a mini hub, in other words a focus city like LAX is for UA and AA.

I don't believe UA would pull out of JFK, especially for the trans-cons. UA makes $$$ on the LAX/SFO-JFK runs. I could envision UA adding service to EWR from its hubs, however.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 10):
Disagree. UA keeps JFK open purely because of their extremely profitable SFO/LAX-JFK service. EWR does not command the yields that JFK does when it comes to the SFO/LAX market.

Agreed. UA would not cede the LAX/SFO-JFK market to AA. No way.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-11 15:42:54 and read 12390 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Thread starter):
Feel free to speculate, and of course if any of you have heard anything yet, let us know!

I would expect the following flights to be added by CO itself, particularly as the 787s start rolling in. Some connect to other Star hubs, others complement United's expansion, and some make sense in a multi-carrier ATI sales context:

EWR-HEL (seasonal)
EWR-VIE
EWR-CAI
EWR/IAH-BLR
EWR/IAH-ICN
EWR/IAH-MUC
EWR-STR
EWR-WAW (seasonal)
EWR-AUH/DOH
EWR-DME
IAH-PEK/PVG
CLE-FRA (seasonal)


I'd expect the immunized Star partners to perform the balance of any additional expansion into EWR/IAH beyond the city pairs I mentioned.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Azjubilee
Posted 2008-08-11 15:50:07 and read 12360 times.

For crying out loud people... DL and AF have a NEW joint venture across the Atlantic. It doesn't matter what airline operates the flight, the airlines split the revenue. By DL/AF realigning the JFK-CDG operation, it will have no bearing on the CO EWR-CDG service. There is no loss from the AF/DL side... if anything JFK-CDG has a better and consistent product. Remember, this JV is mirroring the incredibly successful NW/KL JV, no matter what the tail color is, they operate as ONE airline to and from Europe.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Jfk777
Posted 2008-08-11 16:41:19 and read 12182 times.



Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
believe that out of EWR, UA flies to LHR, IAD (United Express), MIA, ORD, DEN, LAX and SFO. Maybe United will add a second daily EWR-LHR and a nonstop service EWR-NRT.

United sold the traffic right for JFK to Lodon to Delta two years ago. Delta first flew to LGW then to LHR last March with Open Skies.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DL Widget Head
Posted 2008-08-11 16:46:18 and read 12141 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Thread starter):
Now that Continental is joining the Star Alliance, I was wondering how our very "Sky-Centric" network will change.

Good luck with that. CO wasn't very "Team" oriented as it were and not easy to work with. Unless they change their strategy significantly from the top and humble themselves, then we'll probably see more of the same "Co-Centric" network decisions going forward.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-11 16:49:15 and read 12132 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 12):
EWR/IAH-MUC

You may see LH on these routes before CO, it won't matter who flies the routes in any case as UA/LH/CO/AC are going to be operating all transatlantic flights under a joint venture agreement.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DTWAGENT
Posted 2008-08-11 16:49:13 and read 12117 times.

If they are going to do a CLE/FRA flight it would have to be with CO metal. I don't think LH would put a plane on that route when they have 1 daily year round flight and 1 summer flight daily out of DTW. I could be wrong. But, I don't see LH doing that. AS far as the CLE/LGW flight. I thought that was doing great. And if so why would they drop that flight?

chuck

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: STT757
Posted 2008-08-11 16:54:27 and read 12093 times.



Quoting United1 (Reply 16):
You may see LH o

LH already operates;

EWR-

FRA 2Xs daily, DUS daily, MUC daily

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2008-08-11 17:08:10 and read 12038 times.

I would imagine EWR-MUC is pretty much a guarantee once CO is in Star.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-11 17:22:15 and read 11976 times.



Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 15):
Unless they change their strategy significantly from the top and humble themselves, then we'll probably see more of the same "Co-Centric" network decisions going forward.

You have already seen a rather large shift in COs strategy, by joining not only Star but the transatlantic joint venture of UA/LH (not to mention adding AC into that mix) tells me that CO is going to be a core part of the alliance going forward and is no longer content being 3rd chair in any alliance. As for adding flights that are "Co-Centric" what do you expect them to do? not add flights at EWR as that might affect DL up the road at JFK?

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 17):
AS far as the CLE/LGW flight. I thought that was doing great. And if so why would they drop that flight?

I don't see them dropping CLE-LGW unless they shift it to LHR as/if CO builds a relationship with BD. I do think CLE-FRA is a shoe in to be added at some point, CLE-CDG is going to have to stand on its own however, I think that is the flight at the highest risk of being canceled right now.

Short Term CO/LH adds...
IAH-FRA
CLE-FRA
EWR-MUC

Almost immediately cut...
EWR-AMS becomes double daily 752s (767 flights goes away)
EWR-CDG looses the 3rd daily flight
IAH-AMS stays as a single daily 767 (no more second flight during the summer)
IAH-CDG downgraded to a 767 from a 777

Medium/Long terms adds...
IAH-ZRH (if Swiss joins the Atlantic JV)
IAH-AKL (long shot if NZ joins the UA/CO Pacific JV)
IAH/EWR-GUM

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-11 17:27:16 and read 11950 times.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 18):
LH already operates;

EWR-

FRA 2Xs daily, DUS daily, MUC daily

Oops didn't realise that, well then you may not see much added out of EWR at least to Germany.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CODC10
Posted 2008-08-11 17:34:53 and read 11924 times.

Count on IAH-FRA and EWR-MUC. IAH-AMS will probably stay but definitely at reduced frequency. IAH-CDG is fine as well, as are at least two of the EWR-CDG flights during the peak season.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
I believe that out of EWR, UA flies to LHR, IAD (United Express), MIA, ORD, DEN, LAX and SFO. Maybe United will add a second daily EWR-LHR and a nonstop service EWR-NRT.

UA's presence at EWR is token at best. They are strong in the Chicago market but really don't have much to offer elsewhere, especially compared to the late 1990s when EWR was a large UA station.

A few years back, they offered the best schedule to LAX/SFO, and even flew to SAN (and maybe SEA) from EWR. International service was NRT up until the mid-1990s, then LHR until just a few years ago. Both routes saw the 747 and EWR-LHR was an early 777 route. Now United is essentially a shell of themselves at Newark.

Furthermore, I'd put the odds of a United return to EWR-LHR/NRT right between slim and none, and my Uncle Slim has been dead for years now...

Today's UA/X operations at EWR:

LAX: 1x (A319)
SFO: 2x (A319/320)
ORD: 8x (733/735/757/A320)
DEN: 3x (757/A320)
IAD: 4x (UAX CRJ)

Contrast this to an old 1997 timetable I have:

BOS: 9x (737/UAX J31/J41)
ORD: 14x (727/737/757/DC10/A320)
DEN: 6x (727/737/757/A320)
LHR: 1x (777)
LAX: 5x (757/A320)
MIA: 1x (727)
SAN: 1x (A320)
SFO: 6x (757/767)
IAD: 15x (UAX J31/J41)

Quite a difference: 58 daily flights in 1997 to just 18 in 2008.

Just for kicks, here is the same data for JFK

2008:

IAD: 6x (UAX)
LAX: 7x (p.s. 757)
SFO: 7x (p.s. 757)

1997:

BOS: 9x (737/757/UAX J31/J41)
BWI: 4x (UAX J41)
EZE: 1x (777)
CCS: 1x (757)
LHR: 2x (763)
LAX: 7x (762/763)
PIT: 4x (UAX J41)
ROC: 2x (UAX J31)
SFO: 7x (762/763)
SJU: 1x (757)
GRU: 1x (763)
SEA: 1x (757)
NRT: 2x (744)
IAD: 11x (UAX J31/J41)

While not all flights ran daily, you're looking at roughly 50 daily departures in 1997 (with as many as 20 widebody flights) versus 20 flights today, with zero widebodies.

United used to be great for me out of EWR, as my travel was EWR-LAX/LHR/ORD. I was a fairly loyal UA flyer until about 1998, when it was over to Continental for the vast majority of my business. I just don't see how UA could ever come back to EWR without stepping on its future alliance partner's toes, especially to prime markets like NRT and LHR.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-11 17:40:00 and read 11876 times.



Quoting CODC10 (Reply 22):
I just don't see how UA could ever come back to EWR without stepping on its future alliance partner's toes, especially to prime markets like NRT and LHR.

Totally agreed you are not going to see UA add much at EWR going forward, just as CO is probably not going to step on UAs toes by rebuilding the hubs/focus cities at IAD/LAX that they once had.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-11 19:53:12 and read 11559 times.

I wouldn't rule out United restarting EWR-NRT. United can offer superior cargo lift if it uses the 744, and also offers International First Class.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: 777gk
Posted 2008-08-11 20:30:22 and read 11252 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 24):
I wouldn't rule out United restarting EWR-NRT. United can offer superior cargo lift if it uses the 744, and also offers International First Class.

Realistically... not a whole lot more. For it's overall volume, the 747 is not a terribly efficient cargo hauler due to the irregular shape of its fuselage.

The 772ER can operate EWR-NRT-EWR chock-a-block in most conditions. The 747's advantage would be in terms of pax revenue, and I doubt CO would want to dilute their passenger yield on this important route by introducing an additional flight operated by a 747.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt CO would simply hand over one of their marquee routes to a small player in a fortress hub city, even with ATI, revenue sharing arrangements, cooperative marketing, and alliance reciprocity. The inverse scenario (UA transferring a hub-NRT flight, or any, for that matter, to CO) is equally unlikely, IMO.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DL Widget Head
Posted 2008-08-11 20:41:43 and read 11675 times.



Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 15):
CO wasn't very "Team" oriented as it were and not easy to work with. Unless they change their strategy significantly from the top and humble themselves, then we'll probably see more of the same "Co-Centric" network decisions going forward.



Quoting 777gk (Reply 25):
I seriously doubt CO would simply hand over one of their marquee routes to a small player in a fortress hub city, even with ATI, revenue sharing arrangements, cooperative marketing, and alliance reciprocity.

My point exactly. DL chose to give up one of their marquee routes JFK-CDG and let AF fly it. I doubt CO would do this even with ATI. Their too "CO-Centric" unless they've had a change of heart and decided to become a team player.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: 777gk
Posted 2008-08-11 20:58:39 and read 11527 times.



Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 26):

My point exactly. DL chose to give up one of their marquee routes JFK-CDG and let AF fly it. I doubt CO would do this even with ATI. Their too "CO-Centric" unless they've had a change of heart and decided to become a team player.

Are you kidding me? So CO should take a route it makes significant money on, with no local competition, and just hand it over for the sake of the 'team'? Give me a friggin' break, that's totally ludicrous.

Simply put, with the competitive situation on the NYC-CDG route, DL could not make it work. Despite the transatlantic codeshare with Air France, DL offered a limited service (one frequency per day) which was not sufficient to draw enough high-yielding travelers. Meanwhile, AF probably enjoys strong yields with their well-established multiple daily frequencies and high-fare Concorde legacy.

This was no goodwill move by Delta. AF can do JFK-CDG better than they can, and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Had JFK-CDG not been a route covered under the JV, DL may have hung in longer, but likely would have cut the route completely, with no revenue-splitting codeshare flights to maintain market presence.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of CO's transatlantic routes from EWR were successes for the carrier, and their decision to keep 100% of the revenue was a no-brainer. The benefits CO brings to SkyTeam are arguably greater than the benefits SkyTeam brings to CO, and perhaps speaks to why CO has avoided pursuing ATI with any ST carriers.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DL Widget Head
Posted 2008-08-11 21:12:51 and read 11397 times.



Quoting 777gk (Reply 27):
So CO should take a route it makes significant money on, with no local competition, and just hand it over for the sake of the 'team'?

Yes, A route like EWR-MUC could easily be only flown by LH under a JV but CO's strategy of "meisim" in the past would not allow for this. ATI will allow for them both to share profits equally but CO is (or was) too "CO metal only" focused to share. Beware STAR, you've got a spoiled rotten, egotistical prima dona on your hands.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-11 21:37:31 and read 11200 times.



Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 28):
Yes, A route like EWR-MUC could easily be only flown by LH under a JV but CO's strategy of "meisim" in the past would not allow for this.

Well at this point it really makes no difference if CO just has to fly the route or not A++ is designed to be "metal-nutral" it makes no difference if it's CO or LH aircraft they all share in the profit, revenue, risks & rewards.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: COflyerBOS
Posted 2008-08-11 22:46:53 and read 10745 times.

With companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Schlumberger around, CO wont be dropping IAH to AMS or CDG service. There is no way they'd give up those routes to KL and AF. Forcing the energy folks to connect in EWR to get to Paris or Amsterdam would be a disaster.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: HMan
Posted 2008-08-11 23:44:33 and read 10413 times.

Hopefully LH will not make CO pull out of every market in Germany besides FRA & MUC!

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2008-08-12 05:19:08 and read 8829 times.

Yes, A route like EWR-MUC could easily be only flown by LH under a JV but CO's strategy of "meisim" in the past would not allow for this. ATI will allow for them both to share profits equally but CO is (or was) too "CO metal only" focused to share.

CO doesn't fly EWR-MUC.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 08:34:07 and read 7475 times.



Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 28):
Beware STAR, you've got a spoiled rotten, egotistical prima dona on your hands.

CO has recognized that the industry environment has changed, and made the smartest choice in evolving away from its hitherto successful "go it alone" approach. Instead of sticking with an alliance centered largely around dominating secondary markets, CO has decided instead to enter into joint ventures with airlines that will result in very strong positions in the world's major economies.

From the standpoint of a USA-based carrier, SkyTeam's hub offerings of Paris and Amsterdam pale in comparison to the joint-venture opportunities possible with the likes of, say, London Heathrow, a market where the SkyTeam carriers can never be more than a bit player. To say nothing, of course, of having a SOLID lock on air travel to/from the most powerful economy in Europe -- Germany. Ditto for Asia, where SkyTeam's Seoul and Guangzhou is small potatoes compared to the powerful JV opportunities via Tokyo Narita, Bangkok, Singapore, and possibly, Delhi and Mumbai (and yes, Star can run Seoul as a JV hub, too -- and may God help SkyTeam and oneworld if the Chinese ever go Open Skies -- the thought of a Star JV with Air China and Shanghai Airlines boggles the mind).

True, SkyTeam's effort to link the oil markets of the world is very impressive, and allows their member carriers to compete vigorously. But as Star moves into the Joint Venture phase of its existence, no one comes close to offering so much service to so many business and premium travelers around the world. And Continental wisely realized this.

Quoting 777gk (Reply 25):
Furthermore, I seriously doubt CO would simply hand over one of their marquee routes to a small player in a fortress hub city, even with ATI, revenue sharing arrangements, cooperative marketing, and alliance reciprocity. The inverse scenario (UA transferring a hub-NRT flight, or any, for that matter, to CO) is equally unlikely, IMO.

I wouldn't rule anything out. And FWIW, I could easily see EWR supporting double-daily service to NRT down the road -- a United 747/777 that largely caters to connections beyond NRT, and in time, a CO 787 to handle the sizeable O&D on the route.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: 777gk
Posted 2008-08-12 08:39:50 and read 7402 times.

The bulk of the last six posts on this thread have been totally absurd.

I highly doubt the joint venture will split revenues completely and evenly. There must be some incentive for a carrier to operate a route using its own equipment. Can one of you ATI/JV experts explain that to me?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Yellowtail
Posted 2008-08-12 08:45:39 and read 7381 times.



Quoting PanAm747LHR (Reply 3):
I wouldn't be surprised to see IAH-AMS get axed in favor of service to a Star Hub.

Not likely..CO has a lot of Corporate OIl contracts for folks headed to the north sea...for example...my brother's company policy specifies travel on CO first....even if a more direct route is available....they are only allowed to take another carrier if the other carrier's flight will get them there more than 6 hours earlier, no business class seat available, or if CO does not fly the route.

They may drop the second flight..but 1XAMS will stay......

Quoting American 767 (Reply 8):
Maybe United will add a second daily EWR-LHR and a nonstop service EWR-NRT.

Co would have a fit..esp the LHR one...after they paid so much for the slots!

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Adicool
Posted 2008-08-12 08:55:30 and read 7304 times.

I also have a question regarding the JV between AC LH UA and CO.
Will LX be included into this JV as it is wholly owned by LH and what about BD once they will be acquired by LH (which will happen, no doubt here).
And I think that linking the world's oil traffic, you also need a hub at a "oil destination" - and AMS is nothing compared to IAH.

And one more question. People here often say, that revenues across the Atlantic will be shared between the four carriers - does that mean, that the revenues of a CO EWR-LIS flight will be split between the four?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-12 09:13:04 and read 7127 times.



Quoting 777gk (Reply 36):
I highly doubt the joint venture will split revenues completely and evenly. There must be some incentive for a carrier to operate a route using its own equipment. Can one of you ATI/JV experts explain that to me?

Well in general with a JV you split revenue/profit based upon ASMs/RPMs flown or some other metric that is agreed upon ahead of time, but every penny of revenue that the airline makes on that particular segment that is part of the JV goes into a pot and is split according to that metric. There are also "performance" incentives (on-time, baggage, ect) built into the JV between UA/CO/LH/AC that can increase ones share of the pot ever so slightly. There is no incentive for an airline to favor putting a passenger on their aircraft or on another carriers as in the end they all get a share of the revenue, the current catch phrase is "metal neutrality" which in short means that it makes absolutely no shred of difference which airline in the JV operates the flight.

ATI is simply the US Federal governments blessing to coordinate with another airline schedules & pricing, there is not necessarily revenue sharing involved in this case.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 09:52:54 and read 6820 times.



Quoting 777gk (Reply 36):
I highly doubt the joint venture will split revenues completely and evenly. There must be some incentive for a carrier to operate a route using its own equipment. Can one of you ATI/JV experts explain that to me?

Immunized joint ventures that involve revenue sharing, such as the NW/KLM North Atlantic Joint Venture, certainly DO pool all of their revenues from the applicable routes, and then allocate distributions of the revenues according to either the ASMs offered within the JV by each airline, or else by a prenegotiated distribution formula agreed to by the participants, which can be a 50%-50% arrangement.

Of course, in order to be financially successful and relatively harmonious, JV participants have to be willing to downplay or set aside institutional biases favoring the use of their own equipment when the metal of their partner is the better fit for a given route. And in the major JVs we've seen to date, participating carriers have been generally willing to do just that.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: A342
Posted 2008-08-12 10:17:54 and read 6630 times.

As already mentioned above, LH already flies MUC-EWR. If the Joint Venture is formed, there is no need for CO to fly the route. If more capacity is needed, LH can put an A346 on the route, simple as that.

In terms of Germany service, CO should focus on IAH. IAH-MUC with the 762ER would be great.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 11:19:38 and read 6219 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 39):
If the Joint Venture is formed, there is no need for CO to fly the route.

It depends on a variety of factors that do not make utilization a black-or-white decision. For example, if the carriers want to adjust capacity on the route, it's entirely possible that the flight may switch to a CO aircraft type, or that a CO bird will run alongside the LH flight.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: FlyDreamliner
Posted 2008-08-12 11:22:25 and read 6208 times.

We won't see intercontinental routes from EWR on UA. They'll be CO, and they'll link into UA's asia network from HKG and NRT. We'll see UA probably drop EZE, and may in fact totally fold in South Am and put pax onto CO in time (with an extended ATI and rev sharing). We'll def. see LH move volume from JFK to EWR to link into the best NYC connectivity of any airline at EWR on CO. MUC-EWR will probably be on LH. FRA-IAH may just expand capacity on LH, and we'll probably see IAH-MUC, given LH's drive to increase MUC ops and take some heat off of the overwhelmed FRA hub (wouldn't it be cool if flying to FRA no longer involved buses?)

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 11):
Agreed. UA would not cede the LAX/SFO-JFK market to AA. No way.

Give it time. JFK and EWR are somewhat similar in how convenient they are to get to from Manhattan. South Manhattan is more convenient to EWR, north moreso to JFK. They could, if they built up their business at EWR, and convinced traffic to follow them, move the PS to EWR and keep yields up, and have significant cost savings closing the JFK station and getting to use CO's infrastructure at EWR.

Quoting United1 (Reply 20):
IAH-AKL (long shot if NZ joins the UA/CO Pacific JV)

Nope. Never. AKL is well served from SFO and LAX... if UA doesn't serve it with their own metal out of SFO (and their 772ER's can def. do the route, to head that off before it starts), we won't see it out of IAH.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 11:46:52 and read 6043 times.



Quoting A342 (Reply 39):
In terms of Germany service, CO should focus on IAH. IAH-MUC with the 762ER would be great

Agreed. There is no need to duplicate EWR-MUC on both airlines. Without a doubt there will be a new service flown from IAH-MUC, in addition I would not be so quick to rule out IAH-DUS as well with the new long-haul operations from DUS.

Quoting HMan (Reply 31):
Hopefully LH will not make CO pull out of every market in Germany besides FRA & MUC!

Agreed. There would be no reason for Continental Airlines to retract from the other German markets it currently serves. The TATL markets of HAM, TXL, and so forth are a direct advantage to Lufthansa, once the codeshare is in place. It will allow connections from Euro markets via HAM and TXL to relieve the traffic funneled through FRA and MUC. It is a win-win situation for LH, if they remain in place.

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 35):
They may drop the second flight..but 1XAMS will stay......

1x IAH-AMS may stay, but will be downgraded to a 767-200.

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 35):
Not likely..CO has a lot of Corporate OIl contracts for folks headed to the north sea...

There has been talk in recent years of an IAH-ABZ service. It would make sense, most importantly with Privatair. The demand is their for pure J service, there is no demand for Y in the market.

Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 26):
DL chose to give up one of their marquee routes JFK-CDG and let AF fly it.

DL dropped the route under the JV, as the DL route was only a 2-cabin service. There is a higher yield return margin with the 3 cabin AF product in the market. So DL dropping JFK-CDG was a financial decision, and a very smart one at that. Dont be to surprised if you see DL take over the SEA-CDG and DTW-CDG next year, if not in 2010.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 24):
I wouldn't rule out United restarting EWR-NRT.

That will not happen, not in this lifetime.

UA cannot make use of the 747-400 on LAX-NRT, or IAD-NRT. It will most certainly not return the 747-400 to a NYC-NRT service with the NH codeshare in place, and CO existing 777-200 service in the market.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 22):
IAH-CDG is fine as well, as are at least two of the EWR-CDG flights during the peak season.

If all is true EWR-CDG will be 2x 767-200 or 757-200, and IAH-CDG will be 1x 767-200. There are going to be a lot of route to equipment rationalizations when the Star Alliance/CO start date comes into play. Do not expect EWR-AMS to remain as is either. The route may end up being flown as a single daily 767-200, if not 2x 757-200.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 17):
If they are going to do a CLE/FRA flight it would have to be with CO metal.

CLE is still a big question. Will it remain as is in number of flights and markets served a year from now? There has been talk of the following scenario. If CO remains dedicated to CLE as it is now there may be a termination of CLE-LGW/CLE-CDG and consolidated into a single daily service CLE-FRA operated by LH with the A333, or CO with the 767-200 in that instance European connections would spring outward from FRA.

Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 15):
Unless they change their strategy significantly from the top and humble themselves, then we'll probably see more of the same "Co-Centric" network decisions going forward.

It was my understanding that Continental Airlines very reluctantly joined Sky Team, and wanted Star Alliance all along. I may be wrong, however, I know there are a lot of people at Continental Airlines and throughout Star Alliance that are more than happy. From a financial and network standpoint EWR is the perfect place for Star Alliance to compete against Sky Team at JFK. Remember the battle for the New York market was and has been ongoing for years. Continental would add a market, Delta would follow. It was a tit-for-tat. Let the best man win as they say. In this case, it is anyone's guess.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 12):
EWR-HEL (seasonal)
EWR-VIE
EWR-CAI
EWR/IAH-BLR
EWR/IAH-ICN
EWR/IAH-MUC
EWR-STR
EWR-WAW (seasonal)
EWR-AUH/DOH
EWR-DME
IAH-PEK/PVG
CLE-FRA (seasonal)

EWR-HEL is a pointless route. Finland is a veyr little and limited market, it is best served by AY, hence the longevity of the airline in the NYC-HEL market.

EWR-BLR is a pointless route. The route is best served ex IAH due to the Texas IT sector and the position of IAH to offer connections, on a more frequent basis from the California IT markets as well.

EWR-WAW is a pointless route. Service is already flown by LOT, CO entering the market would be overkill. Most of the NYC-WAW traffic is VFR, and certainly is not yield driven.

EWR-AUH/DOH would be pointless routes. They would be much better flown from IAH if anything. I would not rule out more Middle East markets to enter to CO market, but from IAH. The oil traffic is not NYC-AUH/DOH, it is IAH.

CLE-FRA would be a good route, however it would have to be flown year round to be a success. As stated earlier if CO is to remain dedicated to the CLE market, the route will be flown. If not, look for more retracting from CLE, and including that of the TATL markets.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-12 11:47:05 and read 6043 times.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 41):
Quoting United1 (Reply 20):
IAH-AKL (long shot if NZ joins the UA/CO Pacific JV)

Nope. Never. AKL is well served from SFO and LAX... if UA doesn't serve it with their own metal out of SFO (and their 772ER's can def. do the route, to head that off before it starts), we won't see it out of IAH.

UA operated 772s on the route for several years so there is no question that they can operate the flight. My thought on proposing the route was CO deploying a 787 on it, if NZ joins the Pacific JV AKL-IAH would provide 1 stop service from Australia to IAH which would link Stars largest north American hub directly into the south Pacific. I think its a long shot but I also think its a possibility.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 12:00:40 and read 5952 times.



Quoting United1 (Reply 43):
UA operated 772s on the route for several years so there is no question that they can operate the flight. My thought on proposing the route was CO deploying a 787 on it, if NZ joins the Pacific JV AKL-IAH would provide 1 stop service from Australia to IAH which would link Stars largest north American hub directly into the south Pacific. I think its a long shot but I also think its a possibility.

United Airlines decision to leave LAX-AKL was due to poor performance on the route. United Airlines ran the 747-200 LAX-HNL-AKL-SYD, then the 747-400 LAX-AKL-BNE, and then LAX-AKL-MEL, and in the end a 777-200 LAX-AKL. The route lost out in favor of NZ. The NZ product is very strong when compared with UA. In fact at the time UA was offering the codeshare on its own and the NZ routes. People were buying the cheaper UA fare in order to fly on NZ. NZ has a direct advantage to UA in the LAX-AKL market. It was service, quality of onboard product, and schedule. LAX-AKL is not going to return, it has been discussed to death.

IAH-AKL is a very strong contender it cannot be ruled out. However there are other routes that CO are looking to add before IAH-AKL. However if DL enters the AKL or SYD market. Look for CO to change things up and re-enter the AKL and SYD markets. CO has the name recognition in the market. To this day CO is the longest running US airline in the Australian market.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-12 12:09:48 and read 5898 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 44):
United Airlines decision to leave LAX-AKL was due to poor performance on the route.

UA dropped the route becasue its cost in AKL were too high, IIRC UA had something like 200 employees just for one daily flight.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: A342
Posted 2008-08-12 12:14:54 and read 5821 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 40):
It depends on a variety of factors that do not make utilization a black-or-white decision. For example, if the carriers want to adjust capacity on the route, it's entirely possible that the flight may switch to a CO aircraft type, or that a CO bird will run alongside the LH flight.

The slot situation in MUC is rather tight, so I believe a larger aircraft is the way forward, and currently, only LH can provide this.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Behramjee
Posted 2008-08-12 12:22:05 and read 5780 times.

This is my personal opinion as to what CO should do trans-atlantic wise due to their Star Alliance membership:

1. new IAH-FRA flights should be launched daily nonstop using their flagship B 772ERs because of the extra number of J class seats on board. They can effectively use LH's FRA gateway to connect IAH originating pax with the high yielding oil markets of Africa, ALA and the Middle East.

2. new IAH-ZRH nonstop flights should be flown daily using a B 762ER for the same reason mentioned above.

3. EWR-MUC should be flown nonstop using a B 762ER daily.

4. CLE-CDG summer seasonal nonstop flights should be suspended for 2009.

5. IAH-AMS should be reduced to a year round daily service using a B 762ER only.

6. IAH-CDG should be reduced capacity wise to a year round B 764ER only.

7. EWR-CDG should be reduced to double daily nonstop year round i.e. daily B 764ER + daily B 752.

8. EWR-FRA should be upgraded from daily B 772ER to double daily services i.e. daily B 772ER + daily B 762ER.

9. EWR-AMS should be downgraded to a daily B 764ER year round service only.

[Edited 2008-08-12 12:47:02]

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2008-08-12 12:33:46 and read 5682 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
Dont be to surprised if you see DL take over the SEA-CDG and DTW-CDG next year, if not in 2010.

Delta will have the DTW-CDG market as soon as the DL/NW merger is consummated.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 12:38:15 and read 5654 times.



Quoting United1 (Reply 45):
UA dropped the route becasue its cost in AKL were too high, IIRC UA had something like 200 employees just for one daily flight.

If United Airlines had a product that obtained the yield necessary, we would not be having this discussion now. I have heard the United Airlines employee pool at Auckland was all of 30 or so people. Where is the number of 200 coming from?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: HAJFlyer
Posted 2008-08-12 12:48:13 and read 5570 times.

I expect ZRH as "minor" Star hub to profit:

ZRH - EWR has already gone from 762 to 764.
As the AA ZRH - DFW flight was doing very well until LX cancelled the codesharing agreement with AA following its takeover by LH, I am conviced that a CO ZRH - IAH flight with a 762 could work quite well although there is comparatively little O&D traffic on this route (not that many big banks in IAH & and not that many oil & gas or oilfield services firms in ZRH).

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: ZRH
Posted 2008-08-12 13:18:10 and read 5493 times.



Quoting Adicool (Reply 36):
Will LX be included into this JV as it is wholly owned by LH

No doubt, as LH integrates the LX network into theirs. This does not mean to give up LX flights on the contrary to offer more options in their network. For example the LH/LX passengers have different choices to the same destinations on different times: for example to PVG from FRA, MUC or with LX from ZRH. Or letting LX fly between GRU and SCL, transferring FRA and MUC passengers in GRU to the SWISS flight. With this examples I only want explain that we can expect that LX always will be included into LH's changes and plans.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 13:32:21 and read 5450 times.

FWIW, I see CO making its entire EWR-Germany operation 752s, with LH hauling the lion's share of any cargo. I also expect CO to re-enter EWR-DUS.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 13:33:17 and read 5445 times.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 41):
We won't see intercontinental routes from EWR on UA.

I agree for the most part, but I would not be entirely surprised to see 1 or 2 UA longhauls from EWR If the carriers deem either the extra capacity or International F class to be worthwhile.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-12 13:42:07 and read 5420 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 49):
Quoting United1 (Reply 45):
UA dropped the route becasue its cost in AKL were too high, IIRC UA had something like 200 employees just for one daily flight.

If United Airlines had a product that obtained the yield necessary, we would not be having this discussion now. I have heard the United Airlines employee pool at Auckland was all of 30 or so people. Where is the number of 200 coming from?

Actually we could very well be, when UA pulled out of AKL they announced that in the 16 years of operating the route they had lost money for most of that period. Product has nothing to do with it AKL station had too high of an overhead to support the one daily flight. I was wrong about the 200 muber however acording to this thread from that time it was 69-80 UA employees at AKL.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/1176674

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DLBOIFIN
Posted 2008-08-12 13:50:44 and read 5379 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
EWR-HEL is a pointless route. Finland is a veyr little and limited market, it is best served by AY, hence the longevity of the airline in the NYC-HEL market.

I strongly disagree with that statement. The HEL-USA market has been growing rapidly, AY is having loadfactors around 92% and they have announced that they will increase the capacity to winter 08/09 with one additional flight per week making it 6 x week operation. In addition they will launch one weekly frequency between HEL and FLL. And bear in mind that only 25% of the HEL-USA market is taking the direct flights, 75% of the traffic goes through other European gateways. So there definitely is room for some additional frequencies, maybe 4-5x week with 757/767/787. And let's not forget the NOKIA effect, they are still headquartered in HEL, and they alone produce a good amount of premium traffic to the USA.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 14:11:20 and read 5314 times.



Quoting DLBOIFIN (Reply 55):
I strongly disagree with that statement. The HEL-USA market has been growing rapidly, AY is having loadfactors around 92% and they have announced that they will increase the capacity to winter 08/09 with one additional flight per week making it 6 x week operation

I agree, and with SK able to offer a more formidable sales presence, I see it as a route CO might be willing to take on.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: AznMadSci
Posted 2008-08-12 14:12:31 and read 5312 times.

How about CO tap into VIE and OS and utilize their Eastern Europe, Middle East, and some Central Asia routes?

I would like to see IAH-ZRH on either CO or LX, as well as CO or SK doing IAH-OSL/ARN/CPH to tap into Norweigan oil traffic.

From the Asian side, I hope to see SQ daily, while CO/CS heavily partner with NH.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 14:35:27 and read 5258 times.



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 57):
From the Asian side, I hope to see SQ daily, while CO/CS heavily partner with NH.

SQ and TG will likely be part of any TPAC Immunized JV, but NH is out until Japan goes Open Skies.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CALMSP
Posted 2008-08-12 15:29:11 and read 5177 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
1x IAH-AMS may stay, but will be downgraded to a 767-200.

why??? Why would we want to drop 10 Business First customers?? Why would we want to drop the cargo uplift???

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 47):
IAH-AMS should be reduced to a year round daily service using a B 762ER only.

why??? why would we want to drop 10 Business First customers?? Why would we want to drop teh cargo uplift???

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 47):
IAH-CDG should be reduced capacity wise to a year round B 764ER only.

Bad idea........we would lose 15 first class customers.........and not to mention the large cargo movements we have b/t IAH & CDG.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 52):
I also expect CO to re-enter EWR-DUS.

Not gonna happen. We already pulled out once and are pulling out of CGN in the next few weeks. Aligning ourselves with STAR doesnt offer us much out of DUS to warrant re-entryl.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-12 15:44:41 and read 5142 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 58):
SQ and TG will likely be part of any TPAC Immunized JV, but NH is out until Japan goes Open Skies

Actually TG and SQ are not part of the ATI portion of Star, NH and NZ are the two Asia Pacific based carries who have ATI agreements with UA.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 59):
why??? Why would we want to drop 10 Business First customers?? Why would we want to drop the cargo uplift???

Well it all depends if those passengers are connecting or ending their journey in AMS, once CO cuts their ties with Skyteam you will probably see them downsize capacity in SkyTeam markets where they connected alot of passengers, if the 762 is the right size aircraft post SkyTeam why wouldn't they cut capacity and shift the larger aircraft to Star markets?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 15:46:24 and read 5137 times.



Quoting CALMSP (Reply 59):
Aligning ourselves with STAR doesnt offer us much out of DUS to warrant re-entryl.

Sure it does. DUS is an increasingly large focus city for Lufthansa, which over time will likely develop into a full-fledged hub.

Lufthansa recently started EWR-DUS services, and I would not be at all surprised to see CO take over that flight with a 757. The key is getting the LH sales presence, because CO on its own is a fairly poor performer in the German market.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: AznMadSci
Posted 2008-08-12 15:48:27 and read 5129 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 58):
SQ and TG will likely be part of any TPAC Immunized JV, but NH is out until Japan goes Open Skies.

Will CA, NZ, OZ also be part of the TPAC mix?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Tommy767
Posted 2008-08-12 17:28:45 and read 5019 times.



Quoting CODC10 (Reply 22):
A few years back, they offered the best schedule to LAX/SFO, and even flew to SAN (and maybe SEA) from EWR. International service was NRT up until the mid-1990s, then LHR until just a few years ago. Both routes saw the 747 and EWR-LHR was an early 777 route. Now United is essentially a shell of themselves at Newark.

Furthermore, I'd put the odds of a United return to EWR-LHR/NRT right between slim and none, and my Uncle Slim has been dead for years now...

UA's cutting of frequency EWR-SFO/LAX was a bit pre-mature IMHO. Over the past decade, UA was definately threatened by CO's presence, inevitably leading to the closing of the crew base back in 2006. I think with CO in Star, UA might be able to ramp up some larger a/c on some core routes (San francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago) and install a beneficial code share that will attracting loyal CO EWR passengers to fly UA with better connections in the western U.S. and Asia. Remember, most of Satellite A-1 at EWR is still leased by UA, so they have the resources to re-instate frequency if they choose to.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 41):
We won't see intercontinental routes from EWR on UA. They'll be CO, and they'll link into UA's asia network from HKG and NRT.

Possible, but I think its more probable that UA would be more wise to connect EWR passengers to IAD to the IAD-NRT flight. If anything, I would expect EWR-IAD to move up to mainline 737/757 instead of express.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 41):
move the PS to EWR and keep yields up, and have significant cost savings closing the JFK station and getting to use CO's infrastructure at EWR.

This is interesting. JFK has the attraction for the P.S. service whereas EWR is clogged by CO's transcon presence. I highly doubt that UA would close JFK for contract reasons, but ramping up 752s on EWR-LAX/SFO and possibly on P.S. would be nice to see. CO's 73G transcon flights really don't offer anything too exciting for premium passengers. On UA, you can at least get lie-flat F class seats and E+.

Quoting ZRH (Reply 51):
FWIW, I see CO making its entire EWR-Germany operation 752s, with LH hauling the lion's share of any cargo. I also expect CO to re-enter EWR-DUS.

Leave it to LH for the Germany expansion to EWR. CO's 752s are no match for LH in these markets (including DUS.)

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 53):
I agree for the most part, but I would not be entirely surprised to see 1 or 2 UA long hauls from EWR If the carriers deem either the extra capacity or International F class to be worthwhile.

I for one would love to see it. I miss the glory days of UA at EWR. EWR is very bland without competition. We will have to see how it plans out. It all depends on how much CO wants to defend EWR and if/when they let UA get a piece of the pie.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 17:46:03 and read 4978 times.



Quoting DLBOIFIN (Reply 55):
The HEL-USA market has been growing rapidly, AY is having loadfactors around 92% and they have announced that they will increase the capacity to winter 08/09 with one additional flight per week making it 6 x week operation.

You have posted the connections from HEL are in the area of 75%. So please rationalize why a route that is only 25% O&D would work. Most people have no need if any to go to Finland without the exception of very few businesses and the trade between Finland and the USA is dwarfed by that of Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and so forth in the Northern European market. Last I checked Helsinki does not have the business nor the tourist market demand of AMS, CPH, ARN, TXL, WAW, MOW, LED, and so forth.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 59):
why??? Why would we want to drop 10 Business First customers?? Why would we want to drop the cargo uplift???

It isnt about the Business First customers. We all know that getting a last minute Business First ticket on EWR-AMS and IAH-AMS is rather easy. By reducing the equipment into the AMS market Continental can offer less seats, be non connection reliant at AMS, and drive yields up d lack of Continental Airlines seats in the market. I know EWR-AMS is a non-rev's dream. However if airlines were run for the non-rev whims of the employees they would be out of business like there was no tomorrow.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CALMSP
Posted 2008-08-12 18:02:39 and read 4948 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 64):
It isnt about the Business First customers.

is this supposed to be a joke???

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 18:25:47 and read 4895 times.



Quoting CALMSP (Reply 65):
is this supposed to be a joke???

EWR-AMS is a mileage burn, IAH-AMS is another story..

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Behramjee
Posted 2008-08-12 19:22:36 and read 4811 times.



Quoting CALMSP (Reply 59):
Bad idea........we would lose 15 first class customers.........and not to mention the large cargo movements we have b/t IAH & CDG. why??? why would we want to drop 10 Business First customers for IAH-AMS?? Why would we want to drop teh cargo uplift???

correct me if Im wrong but isnt the main reason why CO has so many J class pax on IAH-CDG and IAH-AMS flights is largelt due to onward connectivity options to Europe/Africa and Middle East via these 2 Sky Team hubs on AF-KL?

or is it mainly O&D J class demand between IAH-CDG and IAH-AMS? please elaborate in detail as you seem to know more by working for Continental...thank you  Smile

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-12 19:52:09 and read 4740 times.



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 67):
correct me if Im wrong but isnt the main reason why CO has so many J class pax on IAH-CDG and IAH-AMS flights is largelt due to onward connectivity options to Europe/Africa and Middle East via these 2 Sky Team hubs on AF-KL?

No. Those are HEAVY O&D routes for CO, and will invariably remain.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: VC10er
Posted 2008-08-12 20:04:15 and read 4721 times.

CO used to have an EWR to GIG on a DC-10 many years ago. Would they consider that as only Tam is going to be the only airline out of the NYC area to GIG non-stop.

also, does anyone think they will give double miles like UA and LH over the Atlantic?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Oby
Posted 2008-08-12 21:16:42 and read 4633 times.

I don't think a lot will happen. They will only shut down a couple of their routes to none SA hubs and then shiften flights to those hubs. Also they might start a few new flights to te Scandinavian countries from cities like IAH. but i don't think a lot will happen

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CODC10
Posted 2008-08-12 22:23:40 and read 4564 times.



Quoting Behramjee (Reply 67):

correct me if Im wrong but isnt the main reason why CO has so many J class pax on IAH-CDG and IAH-AMS flights is largelt due to onward connectivity options to Europe/Africa and Middle East via these 2 Sky Team hubs on AF-KL?

or is it mainly O&D J class demand between IAH-CDG and IAH-AMS? please elaborate in detail as you seem to know more by working for Continental...thank you

IAH-CDG/AMS have strong onward traffic with AF/KL to the Middle East and Africa, but both markets generate sufficient O&D traffic to sustain nonstop service.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Lambert747
Posted 2008-08-12 22:25:12 and read 4564 times.



Quoting CODC10 (Reply 71):
IAH-CDG/AMS have strong onward traffic with AF/KL to the Middle East and Africa, but both markets generate sufficient O&D traffic to sustain nonstop service.

With the rationalization of no longer having connecting traffic at CDG and AMS both routes will in most cases be downgraded to 767-200 or multiple 757 services. The 777-200 and 767-400 to either route without the connecting Sky Team traffic would prove futile.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Humberside
Posted 2008-08-13 02:29:25 and read 4433 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
It will allow connections from Euro markets via HAM and TXL to relieve the traffic funneled through FRA and MUC

LH has a few European routes at HAM, but their Tegel presence is a lot smaller and therefore has limited potential for onward connections. CGN, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Vienna maybe but all of LH's other TXL destinations are either served by CO or LH from EWR, or are weekend only routes

Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
If CO remains dedicated to CLE as it is now there may be a termination of CLE-LGW/CLE-CDG and consolidated into a single daily service CLE-FRA operated by LH with the A333,

Considering the lack of many connections at LGW, it would be reasonable to assume that most LGW traffic is London traffic, and very little of that would go via FRA. Therefore FRA may get the CDG traffic but not much LGW traffic and does a B757 to CDG worth's of traffic, plus a little bit of Gatwick traffic equal enough passengers to fill an A330 to FRA?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DLBOIFIN
Posted 2008-08-13 09:13:35 and read 4133 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 64):
You have posted the connections from HEL are in the area of 75%. So please rationalize why a route that is only 25% O&D would work.

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. Finland-USA market is 100%, only 25% of that market is traveling non-stop, mostly due to AY is reluctant to add more capacity over the Atlantic as their core focus and strength is Asia. And AY is flying practically full every day. So there is 75% of the market available. Don't you think that if there would be some other airline coming to the market, they would get any traffic out of those 75% who are now going through ARN, CPH, AMS, FRA, LHR, CDG,...? I believe they would.

Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 64):
Most people have no need if any to go to Finland without the exception of very few businesses and the trade between Finland and the USA is dwarfed by that of Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and so forth in the Northern European market.

But most of the Finns do need to go somewhere to do business or for vacation. In 2007, there were 96.173 Finns arriving in USA (source: US Department of Commerce, ITA). And in 2005, there were 126.000 Americans arriving to Finland (source: Statistics Finland). On top of that there is the transit traffic from the Baltic States, Russia, Poland, etc. which will add up to the total traffic between the two countries.

Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 64):
Last I checked Helsinki does not have the business nor the tourist market demand of AMS, CPH, ARN, TXL, WAW, MOW, LED, and so forth.

And this is based on...? Do you have any facts or is this just your assumption?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: STT757
Posted 2008-08-13 09:18:17 and read 4136 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 72):
With the rationalization of no longer having connecting traffic at CDG and AMS both routes will in most cases be downgraded to 767-200 or multiple 757 services. The 777-200 and 767-400 to either route without the connecting Sky Team traffic would prove futile.

The 767-200 fleet is the smallest of CO's widebodies, there are only ten. The 777-200ER makes up the majority of CO's widebody fleet with 20 777-200ERs and 8 more on the way. It's more likely that the current 777-200ERs will stay on EWR-CDG, IAH-CDG. The additional 777-200ERs on order can open up IAH-FRA, EWR-MUC etc..

"*IF* IAH-AMS were to go to a single daily flight, it would most likely get upgraded to a 777-200ER.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: 2travel2know
Posted 2008-08-13 09:41:31 and read 4102 times.



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 41):
We'll see UA probably drop EZE, and may in fact totally fold in South Am and put pax onto CO in time

EZE will most likely be dropped.
However, UA might want to keep daily IAD-GRU and ORD-GRU, changing equipment depending on the season.

With UA and CO in the same alliance, my guess on UA/CO Brazilian daily flights may be:
UA IAD - GRU
UA ORD - GRU
CO EWR - GRU
CO IAH - GRU
CO IAH - GIG
CO EWR - GIG

CO may have tag-on to CNF, SSA and POA. About CO EWR-REC, I really don't know about that.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Enilria
Posted 2008-08-13 09:50:46 and read 4072 times.



Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 1):
CLE is the big loser in all this,

I think as a result, CO is going to move the CLE hub to CAK!!!

Seriously, though I do agree CLE is at risk of losing int'l flights, CLE gains domestically because now it is not so close to another alliance hub. NW and CO were strange bedfellows with hubs right down the street from each other. You might see the need for more capacity in CLE...and the likely demise of CVG will help as well.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: SandroZRH
Posted 2008-08-13 09:52:19 and read 4066 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 64):
Last I checked Helsinki does not have the business nor the tourist market demand of AMS, CPH, ARN, TXL, WAW, MOW, LED, and so forth.

Clearly, you have never been to finland, or you did something completely wrong there.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2008-08-13 09:55:14 and read 4052 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 72):
With the rationalization of no longer having connecting traffic at CDG and AMS both routes will in most cases be downgraded to 767-200 or multiple 757 services. The 777-200 and 767-400 to either route without the connecting Sky Team traffic would prove futile.

There is a ton of O&D premuim traffic between IAH and CDG/AMS, why downgrade it?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: COalways
Posted 2008-08-13 10:18:48 and read 4009 times.

I think CO is really going to surprise the public with alot of there new coming routes with the arrivals of there 787 & 777. I think were going to see alot of new Intl destination from IAH especially and EWR is also going to see alot of new destinations as while. I think were going to see alot of new service from IAH to the Middleast, Africa and India,. EWR i think will see more Middleeast, India, Asia, Africa, Russia eastern Europe destinations.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-13 10:32:22 and read 3966 times.



Quoting COalways (Reply 80):
I think were going to see alot of new Intl destination from IAH especially and EWR is also going to see alot of new destinations as while.

I agree insofar as I expect CO to attempt to "complement" some of United's recent international expansion, avoiding duplication in new flying to the greatest extent possible. Thus, I wouldn't expect CO to fly EWR-DXB/KWI and thus undercut United, but EWR-AUH would be a distinct possibility.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Panamair
Posted 2008-08-13 11:08:55 and read 3900 times.



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 42):
DL dropped the route under the JV, as the DL route was only a 2-cabin service. There is a higher yield return margin with the 3 cabin AF product in the market.

And yet, AF is stepping in with a 2-cabin A343/A332 service. You give the 3-cabin concept too much credit...even AF has been operating 2-cabin flights on its own between JFK and CDG for a while now (the A332, A343, and 744s in the market only offer J and Y products).

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 58):
SQ and TG will likely be part of any TPAC Immunized JV,

Ha! Good luck getting SQ into any sort of joint venture....

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 61):
Lufthansa recently started EWR-DUS services

Jury's still out on that. LH doesn't exactly have a stellar record of maintaining long-hauls from non-FRA/MUC markets (just like AF with CDG and BA with LHR) and IIRC, the main reasons that LH started DUS long-hauls were attempts to counter AB/LTU and other carriers making inroads into other non-FRA/MUC markets. I still question LH's long-term commitment to further developing DUS though...

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CODC10
Posted 2008-08-13 11:17:45 and read 3873 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 81):
Thus, I wouldn't expect CO to fly EWR-DXB/KWI and thus undercut United, but EWR-AUH would be a distinct possibility.


True, but the New York market is better served with a nonstop service, and seeing as there is no Star presence from New York to any of the markets you've mentioned, I still think it's exceedingly likely we will see at least an EWR-DXB service once CO has sufficient 787s available. IAD only draws New York traffic out of necessity- I think the NY local market is large enough to justify a nonstop to any of those cities in its own right.

In any event I don't think CO is going to avoid entering a potentially profitable market simply because it would indirectly undermine an alliance partner's presence in a different market. While it may be a joint venture, it's not a merger, therefore each company must still make decisions that are in the best interest of its shareholders, not those of other entities.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Ota1
Posted 2008-08-13 11:19:14 and read 3872 times.



Quoting Panamair (Reply 82):
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 61):
Lufthansa recently started EWR-DUS services

Jury's still out on that. LH doesn't exactly have a stellar record of maintaining long-hauls from non-FRA/MUC markets

Actually DUS-EWR has been running for quite some time. It's not a new service it just had been operated by Private Air on behalf of LH with an all business class BBJ before.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-13 11:21:46 and read 3862 times.



Quoting CODC10 (Reply 83):
In any event I don't think CO is going to avoid entering a potentially profitable market simply because it would indirectly undermine an alliance partner's presence in a different market. While it may be a joint venture, it's not a merger, therefore each company must still make decisions that are in the best interest of its shareholders, not those of other entities.

Right, but joint ventures will fail if the participants do not closely coordinate their efforts to avoid unccessary competition and duplication between them. Now, DXB might be a big enough market to warrant both NYC and WAS service from the carriers. But for markets that are only big enough for one of the two to viably enter, I expect the airlines will coordinate and make tough decisions on which of the two carriers is better positioned to enter the market.

Quoting Panamair (Reply 82):
Ha! Good luck getting SQ into any sort of joint venture....

It should be easier than ever before to get SQ into a joint venture arrangement, especially for USA flying.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Exaauadl
Posted 2008-08-13 11:34:08 and read 3828 times.



Quoting RwSEA (Reply 10):
Disagree. UA keeps JFK open purely because of their extremely profitable SFO/LAX-JFK service.

I see the myth persists that JFK-LAX/SFO are extrememly profitable. Of course it may all be relative

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Panamair
Posted 2008-08-13 11:37:02 and read 3818 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 85):
It should be easier than ever before to get SQ into a joint venture arrangement, especially for USA flying.

Why?

Quoting Ota1 (Reply 84):
Actually DUS-EWR has been running for quite some time. It's not a new service it just had been operated by Private Air on behalf of LH with an all business class BBJ before

True, though the BBJ flight was for a very narrowly-targeted O&D segment...the 'mass market' had no nonstop access from DUS on LH long-hauls for quite a while IIRC.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Ota1
Posted 2008-08-13 11:50:45 and read 3787 times.



Quoting Panamair (Reply 87):
True, though the BBJ flight was for a very narrowly-targeted O&D segment...the 'mass market' had no nonstop access from DUS on LH long-hauls for quite a while IIRC.

I agree, however with CO joining *A chances are quite good that this service will actually stay. I don't think it's a coincidence that LH started DUS-EWR, CO dropped EWR-CGN and shortly after that announced their intention to join *A.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: CALMSP
Posted 2008-08-13 11:50:15 and read 3793 times.

"*IF* IAH-AMS were to go to a single daily flight, it would most likely get upgraded to a 777-200ER.


well, the IAH 764 is routed IAH-AMS-EWR.........so there would def be some retiming of the flights. Probably stay a 764.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Avek00
Posted 2008-08-13 11:50:59 and read 3792 times.



Quoting Panamair (Reply 87):
Why?

In a nutshell, SQ is facing several intrinsic and extrinsic changes now and on the horizon with respect to the USA market that increase the attractiveness of participation within a JV, such as significant increases in premium seat capacity by SQ, the pending arrival of the A380 on several of SQ's USA routes, Open Skies with the USA, and the emergence and resurgence of competitors better able to compete with SQ in terms of schedule, network connectivity, and even product (and in some instances, these competitors can leverage immunized alliances themselves).

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Airzim
Posted 2008-08-13 14:13:37 and read 3602 times.



Quoting DLBOIFIN (Reply 74):
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. Finland-USA market is 100%, only 25% of that market is traveling non-stop, mostly due to AY is reluctant to add more capacity over the Atlantic as their core focus and strength is Asia. And AY is flying practically full every day. So there is 75% of the market available. Don't you think that if there would be some other airline coming to the market, they would get any traffic out of those 75% who are now going through ARN, CPH, AMS, FRA, LHR, CDG,...? I believe they would.

But you're ignoring the fact that Finnair has never made money on their JFK flights.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: STT757
Posted 2008-08-13 14:27:10 and read 3568 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 81):
Thus, I wouldn't expect CO to fly EWR-DXB/KWI and thus undercut United, but EWR-AUH would be a distinct possibility.

EWR-DXB yes, KWI would be from IAH (imo).

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 83):
I still think it's exceedingly likely we will see at least an EWR-DXB service once CO has sufficient 787s available

I don't think you will have to wait that long, CO will probably use one of their 8 777-200ERs they have on order to open up EWR-DXB. Before moving the intermediate stop to Stockholm MH flew EWR-DXB-KUL with a 777-200ER.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: OA412
Posted 2008-08-13 15:30:22 and read 3484 times.



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 79):
There is a ton of O&D premuim traffic between IAH and CDG/AMS, why downgrade it?

A bit of trivia. I remember reading some time ago that IAH was AF's only unprofitable US station. However, the flight was kept simply becuase of the number of connections it provided to oil destinations and the amount of profitability it contributed to those routes. However, I agree with you that I don't think CO will be downgrading either route.

Quoting Panamair (Reply 87):
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 85):It should be easier than ever before to get SQ into a joint venture arrangement, especially for USA flying.Why?

I agree with Panam on this one. SQ has never shown all that much willingness to cooperate with other carriers it's role in Star notwithstanding. Don't forget that even though they are alliance partners, SQ has yet to implement a codeshare with UA. An attitude such as this doesn't exactly make me think that they'll be running out to join any JV anytime soon.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: AznMadSci
Posted 2008-08-13 15:46:19 and read 3453 times.



Quoting OA412 (Reply 93):

A bit of trivia. I remember reading some time ago that IAH was AF's only unprofitable US station.

If that was the case, why did they have 13 weekly flights up to now? Also isn't the main IAH flight one of the few US desintations with strong premium cabin numbers to fly aircraft that have both F and J?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: DLBOIFIN
Posted 2008-08-13 15:55:03 and read 3437 times.



Quoting Airzim (Reply 91):

But you're ignoring the fact that Finnair has never made money on their JFK flights.

And this is based on...? What?

At present AY simply cannot afford to have any flights that won't be profitable. See what happened with CAN flights. Unless you can show me some proof or reference to your statement, I consider it just your opinion (and boy, people sure have opinions in A.net  biggrin  ).

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: VC10er
Posted 2008-08-13 19:30:02 and read 3305 times.

to COalways. alot is 2 words; a lot. i often made that mistake mself until someone recently corrected me.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Goldorak
Posted 2008-08-13 22:00:39 and read 3196 times.



Quoting OA412 (Reply 93):
I remember reading some time ago that IAH was AF's only unprofitable US station

I think you're wrong and that IAH is one of the most profitable station. The weakest US station for AF used to be ORD. I don't know if it's still the case

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: United1
Posted 2008-08-13 22:09:58 and read 3196 times.



Quoting Goldorak (Reply 97):
Quoting OA412 (Reply 93):
I remember reading some time ago that IAH was AF's only unprofitable US station

I think you're wrong and that IAH is one of the most profitable station. The weakest US station for AF used to be ORD. I don't know if it's still the case

From what I understood AF makes a killing on the IAH-CDG-"oil rich countries" routes in Africa/Middle east, I think you might be right about ORD arn't they going to 5 times a week service there this winter vs the usually daily flight?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Airzim
Posted 2008-08-14 14:48:15 and read 2909 times.



Quoting DLBOIFIN (Reply 95):
And this is based on...? What?

At present AY simply cannot afford to have any flights that won't be profitable. See what happened with CAN flights. Unless you can show me some proof or reference to your statement, I consider it just your opinion (and boy, people sure have opinions in A.net ).

I can't prove it except anecdotally. I've been told by folks in the head office that JFK is kept simply as a prestige flight and to maintain connection to the US market. This came from the horses mouth and is not an opinion.

You can choose to believe or not?

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: Jfk777
Posted 2008-08-14 15:07:07 and read 2886 times.



Quoting United1 (Reply 98):
From what I understood AF makes a killing on the IAH-CDG-"oil rich countries" routes in Africa/Middle east, I think you might be right about ORD arn't they going to 5 times a week service there this winter vs the usually daily flight?



Quoting OA412 (Reply 93):
bit of trivia. I remember reading some time ago that IAH was AF's only unprofitable US station. However, the flight was kept simply becuase of the number of connections it provided to oil destinations and the amount of profitability it contributed to those routes. However, I agree with you that I don't think CO will be downgrading either route

How can IAH be AF's only loosing USA station but make a profit to "oil destinations" ? If it makes a profit to AF on the connection then its a profitable thing for AF to fly to IAH. IAH is well served, better teh DFW, by foreign airlines and better to Europe by CAL then AA from DFW. KLM, BA, AF, Lufthansa, Singapore, Emirates, and Qatar Airways.

Topic: RE: CO Star Alliance Network Changes
Username: OA412
Posted 2008-08-14 15:10:55 and read 2876 times.



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 94):
If that was the case, why did they have 13 weekly flights up to now? Also isn't the main IAH flight one of the few US desintations with strong premium cabin numbers to fly aircraft that have both F and J?

The information is from a little while ago (maybe 3-4 years ago). At that time, IAH was reportedly unprofitable. However, I seem to recall that IAH has been in the black recently.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/