CAL From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 499 posts, RR: 9 Posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
Well I know there was a post earlier this year that we were supposed to hear an announcement by the end of January on who was going to get the "China Routes" to Beijing and Shanghai. Well its the end of January and no announcment yet. Who do you think will get the rights. Will it be AA, DL or CO. Who exactly has to approve them on the US side and the China side. Also the rumor is that if continental was to get them they were going to opt for another 777 they have yet to receive. How fast could they get the 777. Cant wait to hear what you guys think.
Alb222 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6224 times:
I think DL will get the 2006 authority because flying out of ATL would be opening a new territory.
CO should get the 2005 as UA already covers what AA wants out of ORD.............but who knows............it is all a guess until the word comes.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5880 times:
politics always plays a big role, and if I can recall...AA had a lot of politicians behind them....I wouldn't be surprised if they won, but I think CO or DL will probably get it........which sux for me as an AAdvantage member....
Iowa744Fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5756 times:
One thing has always stuck in my mind about these discussions.
CO should get the 2005 as UA already covers what AA wants out of ORD
agree with you I think it will be Continental just because it will be linking the New York area. Atlanta would defiantly be the runner up. AA has no chance out of ORD
The fact that UA already operates the ORD-PVG route that AA wants to operate seems to be a common argument here. However, by the same reasoning, could we mention that Air China flies nonstop between JFK-PEK (not sure of frequency), and CO would be offering some competition. What do you all think?
Also, one other question. Are there only going to be seven new slots awarded this year? I was curious because I still keep reading about how UA wants to start flying from SFO-CAN by this year. If there were 14 slots available like last year, I would imagine that UA would stand a pretty decent shot at getting seven for this service (which would be good news for them). However, if there are only 7, I would imagine that the new carrier would be awarded all of them. Does anyone know how many PASSENGER slots will be awarded this year?
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5597 times:
There is one big difference between CO and CA. One carrier is from the USA while the other is Chinese.
There are soem nice statistics in the internet. And one says, that 45% of all traffic between the USA and China is in fact between California and China. After CA, New York the the next biggest market for travel to China. The question is, if the USA wants that all this traffic is handled by a Chinese carrier. Chicago in itself is has more than enough service. Most of it's traffic is connection traffic, especially from the East Coast.
Iowa744Fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5355 times:
I am not sure when UA got the rights to fly to Shanghai, but they were only awarded the 7 additional slots last year and thus had the ability to start ORD-PVG. Well, they could have discontinued SFO-PVG, but that would make no sense. I don't think that it was a fear of competition....instead they saw an route with opportunity.
Does the US government have much of a say in this decision? If so, then I could see the validity of the argument. If not, then wouldn't China consider protecting their airline on that route? I have no doubts that the route can support two airlines with two daily flights (again, I don't know the frequency of Air China's flights).
AA is the favourite and has the most political support. In the end, it is likely that AA will get seven and CO will get seven.
Yet this would go against the agreement between the US and China of one new passenger carrier per year. By the way, does this mean that there are 14 slots up for grabs this year?
Yep, you gotta love having the president from the state with your airline's HDQ!
Gocogo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4984 times:
No problem. Just remember, CO has a hub at George Bush Intercontinental (named for Sr.). Don't ask me which the Prez. prefers.
There are only 7 slots this year to open this spring. This spring, AA wants ORD-Shanghai, CO wants EWR-Beijing. For next spring (2006), there are 7 more slots, DL wants ATL-Beijing, CO wants EWR-Shanghai. I also believe Hawaiian and North American are in the running to the 2006 authority. I think each authority is rewarded individually, i.e. we can't see ORD-Shanghai and EWR-Beijing, or ATL-Beijing and EWR-Shanghai.
As far as AA's political support, they say in a release "26 U.S. Senators and 78 U.S. Representatives Top the List of Backers ... seven of the nation's governors have sent letters to the U.S. Department of Transportation in support of the airline's request to become the next passenger carrier awarded the right to fly between the United States and China. ... Additional letters of support for American's China application also have come from dozens of city, county and state officials, chamber of commerce leaders, economic development organizations, labor unions and businesses in Illinois and 16 other states." While this is strong, it is not a majority. If they said 51 senators, or governors from 26 states gave there support, I would be impressed. But we have no way of knowing if CO or DL is getting a similar level of support.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5181 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4925 times:
Back in 1988, AA management had to decide which favorite son of Texas to back, George Bush for President or Lloyd Bentsen for Vice President. Management went with with Dukakis-Bentsen. So, when the ORD-NRT route came up for a second U.S. carrier, UA got it, even though the DOT analysis said that AA was clearly the better choice.
Why? Politics of course!
That's why AA has a reasonable shot. I've often heard that most of the traffic going to Shanghai is business oriented, while Beijing tends to have a higher percentage of leisure travelers.
If this is true, then it might have some bearing on whether AA or CO gets this year's slots.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16824 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
"The fact that UA already operates the ORD-PVG route that AA wants to operate seems to be a common argument here. However, by the same reasoning, could we mention that Air China flies nonstop between JFK-PEK (not sure of frequency), and CO would be offering some competition. What do you all think?"
Since the US is making the decision, they would rather have a US carrier compete against a Chinese carrier rather than two US carriers competing against one another. Also having a US carrier on the NY-China routes is more of a priority than loading Chicago up with even more flights on the same routes.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4889 times:
If AA is sitting on ORD-HKG and HNL-NRT rights that they haven't even begun service with yet (yes, I know there are slot issues with NRT), there's little justification to grant them additional rights to simply sit idle.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4817 times:
Ahh yes--I just skimmed the thread, thus missing the alusory comments--but in response to that, his dad lives in Houston. Either way I think this will have little impact on the outcome of this ruling. It will be on the lobbyist for the airlines on capital hill.