Alexinwa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1107 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
In the mid 80's UA, TG, NW, and JL are ran the SEA-AA), Japan">NRT route. TG and JL about 3x weekly maybe 4. NW and UA daily.
Here is my question. I thought I remembered the government forcing UA to give up the SEA-AA), Japan">NRT slot to CO? CO ran it for a while before it was given to AA? AA ran it with NW and then in '98 UA came back into the market.
How did this all come about?
Now do the airlines have a set number of slots and pick that way? Like UA could move the SEA-AA), Japan">NRT to instead have 3 daily SFO-AA), Japan">NRT or a 2nd daily LAX-AA), Japan">NRT? Which in fact I believe the SEA-AA), Japan">NRT came from. (The 2nd LAX-AA), Japan">NRT)???
I'm interested due to the rumor of NW going with the 332 down from the 742. UA runs the 777. Capacity takes a hit and makes the AA rumor of coming back to SEA-AA), Japan">NRT make sense?
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
When UA bought the PanAm Pacific network, the government did force them to give up SEA-TYO. The route was tentatively awarded to AA, but the initial ruling was overturned and it went to CO. Then in 1990 (I think, could be 89) AA bought the SEA-TYO route from CO, and started service in late 91 or early 92. AA Operated the route, first w/ MD-11, then w/ 777 up until early 02 - cancelling the service just after it's 10 year anniversary. My understanding is that AA still holds the route authority, however the slots that were used for SEA-TYO have been or maybe will be transferred to another route (LAX?).
I don't know the ins and outs of the US/Japan bilateral, but I believe it defines the number of gateways, but not the gateways themselves, and the number of seats/frequencies allowed through each gateway. Sean or another of the resident bilateral experts could give you better info.
Personally I would be surprised to see AA come back onto the route, but w/ the economy on the rebound, the new AA/AS codeshare providing more feed and as you said, the drop in overall capacity, it's certainly conceivable. However they would have to come up w/ the slots at AA), Japan">NRT to operate it, which as I said above, once LAX is operating, I don't think they have.
Rgds
Duane
[Edited 2004-02-18 20:24:09]
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
IndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 948 times:
There are no SEA-AA), Japan">NRT slots, you're talking about the route authority. UA operated SEA/PDX-AA), Japan">NRT but was forced to give up the routes when they purchased PA's t-pac network. DL acquired PDX-AA), Japan">NRT but discontinued the route in 2001. NW will resume the route later this year (obviously applying for the route that DL reliquished). CO acquired SEA-AA), Japan">NRT but later sold it to AA, who operated it until a couple years ago when they discontinued service. Anybody could apply for & claim the route authority.
I'm interested due to the rumor of NW going with the 332 down from the 742. UA runs the 777. Capacity takes a hit and makes the AA rumor of coming back to SEA-AA), Japan">NRT make sense?
NW's A332 will have about 100 less seats than their B742, but NW has added PDX-AA), Japan">NRT as well... BTW, NW's A332 have about the same number of seats as UA's B772, and more seats than AA's B772-Pacific.
I doubt AA will resume the route... they'd have to acquire more slots at AA), Japan">NRT, and they seem determined to use them on route more lucrative to them like JFK/LAX where they're bigger... in factuality, it's a surprise SEA-AA), Japan">NRT lasted as long as it did for AA -- the route lost much of its appeal to the airline when UA began service again...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1107 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
