Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777LR: All Eyes On India, Asia & Middle East  
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5470 times:

Bloomberg reports that Boeing is looking to airlines in India, Asia and the Middle East to sell their 777LR as North American carriers cannot afford them.

Boeing thinks there is a market potential for 200 freighters and 200 passenger versions of the 777LR. US carriers like AA, UA, DL were the main sales target but losses at the US carriers have forced them to cut orders.

I would think CO & AA would be likely carriers for the 777LR, seeing as they are expanding their international routes to India/Asia, no?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

CO is in need of 777s, and the LR could allow for better cargo loads on some of their long routes, but unless CO is planning to fly to SYD from EWR or IAH, or expand into Singapore or Malaysia, I don't quite see the point. Their fleet is too small and simple. They'd be better off saving the millions and getting a few more 772ERs.

AA also doesn't operate routes that need a 772LR, so would also need to expand into SE Asia or Australia. They are large enough to have a subfleet of 772LRs with more frequency than CO could have, but I still don't see it.

UA and DL would have been likely customers if they weren't in such bad shape. UA operates to Australia, and DL needs more range since they operate out of Atlanta. But neither can buy.

200/200 is a very high number for the 772LR. I see at most 100 examples of the pax version. But for Boeing, it is still a big win, because it could bring customers into the 777 fold that would not otherwise fly them, and spawn purchase of other models as well. For example, if QF goes for the 772LR, it would likely also go for the 773ER, no? Of course, they need money, too. It might also extend the fleet life for those who own 772ERs but need to expand. A mixed 772LR/773ER for these carriers might also make sense (BA for example.)



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4518 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

I would think that while AA could make use of the 772LRs, they wouldn't bother with them and simply try to make the most of their regular 772ERs. They don't fly any route which would be a natural candidate for the 772LR, at least not yet.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):

200/200 is a very high number for the 772LR

I would imagine if the original idea was to sell the 777LR to NA carriers, then Boeing must have had some serious interest from those same airlines in order for them to commit to building it in the first place, no?

Not to start another 747ADV theory, but is not the same situation taking place? It seems the 747ADV is attracting more interest cargowise rather than passenger versions, at the moment.

Looks like the 777ER will be the cornerstone of EVA and ANA's long-haul fleet for the foreseeable future, just to name two carriers that otherwise would go with a 747. Also, CX recently announced they would make a decision between the A346 and 777 for their planned order, while BA have also expressed admiration for the 777ER/LR.


User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
AA also doesn't operate routes that need a 772LR, so would also need to expand into SE Asia or Australia.

OTOH, if recent moves are a guide, then AA may indeed move into the B772LR scope. Here, I am talking about their new Indian services and their possible decision to equip B757s with winglets to fly the Atlantic. That is, AA is looking for opportunities to expand internationally because there ain't no money at home.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
200/200 is a very high number for the 772LR.

Actually, I think Boeing has toned this down from 300/200. However, I could be mistaking forecast sales (eg. 66% of a market) with a forecast market.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
I see at most 100 examples of the pax version.

IMHO, Boeing should be able to sell more than 100. Right now, there is interest from AC, EK, EY, S2 & SQ plus some others. Of course, this year 9W, AI & QR joined the -200LR ranks.


User currently offlineNZ1 From Australia, joined May 2004, 2272 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5236 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The 772LR arrives in AKL next Wednesday, so I will glad to give it a good going over. Should be good.

NZ1


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5170 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
UA and DL would have been likely customers if they weren't in such bad shape. UA operates to Australia, and DL needs more range since they operate out of Atlanta. But neither can buy.

If UA could and would buy B777s to fly to Australia, they would buy the B777-300ER not the B777-200LR. Still, the B747Adv would probably be even better for US-OZ ops than the B777-300ER. UA could use the B777-200LR to serve SGN, SIN, MNL, BKK, CGK, etc. nonstop from SFO/LAX.


User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
If UA could and would buy B777s to fly to Australia, they would buy the B777-300ER not the B777-200LR.

What if there was an opportunity for them to try, say, SYD-ORD with -200LRs?


User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 7):
What if there was an opportunity for them to try, say, SYD-ORD with -200LRs?

Agree. They are doing well enough with the 744's not to need the 773ER on LAX/SFO-SYD.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

Looking fwd to the B772LR trip in August.
Im Sure AI,9W & S2 would be keen on checking it out.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 7):
What if there was an opportunity for them to try, say, SYD-ORD with -200LRs?

I don't think it would make sense for UA to overfly their own hub. There is not enough O+D traffic to justify ORD-SYD operated by UA. EWR-SYD operated by CO and ATL-SYD operated by DL are more plausible.

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 8):
They are doing well enough with the 744's not to need the 773ER on LAX/SFO-SYD.

That's why I suggested the B747Adv might be better for UA services to OZ than the B777-300ER. However, if SQ enter the market, then UA will have more difficulty filling B747s.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 7):
What if there was an opportunity for them to try, say, SYD-ORD with -200LRs?

Or DC?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
ATL-SYD operated by DL are more plausible.

Plausible how? Neither have money, and DL doesn't fly to Australia now. UA doing another route is more plausible except for their whole bankruptcy situation...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

...if nothing else, I'd just ~LOVE~ to see AA eat foot after all the sh!t it raised over the 772LR's engine choice! Big grin

User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4415 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4585 times:

Doubtful on AA - the 787 family can offer AA the range necessary to run most any viable flight ex-DFW, and with less seats to fill at that. A CO 772LR is a distinct possibility, but keep in mind that the airline can barely afford its 787 order as it is.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
I don't think it would make sense for UA to overfly their own hub.

Not even to feed a different hub? I'm talking outta my ass, here, but surely there is more east coast connections for UA from ORD than SFO?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
There is not enough O+D traffic to justify ORD-SYD operated by UA.

We're going to disagree on that point.  Wink

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
EWR-SYD operated by CO and ATL-SYD operated by DL are more plausible.

If CO or DL had an Australian presence, I'd be inclined to agree. Anyway, if SQ gets rights to do AU-US services, then it will be very, very hard for any US Major to stay in that game.  Sad

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Or DC?

IMHO, it will be a long, long time before we see any direct link between D.C. and any Australian port.  Sad


User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 7):
What if there was an opportunity for them to try, say, SYD-ORD with -200LRs?

Or DC?

No offence intended, but aren't you the one who accused us CLE people recently of coming up with ridiculous flights out of CLE that never happen? IAD-SYD ain't happening. IAD is the European gateway, and would suck for an east coast/Midwest connection to a point so west. UA doesn't offer much long haul to the west from IAD. No HNL or NRT, where they are quite strong in both cases. ORD-SYD, maybe.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 14):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
EWR-SYD operated by CO and ATL-SYD operated by DL are more plausible.

If CO or DL had an Australian presence, I'd be inclined to agree. Anyway, if SQ gets rights to do AU-US services, then it will be very, very hard for any US Major to stay in that game.

CO does have an Oz presence. AirMike flies to CNS (Cairns). Minor, granted, but they did once have more extensive services out of SYD. Plus, wasn't SQ recently denied the route it did apply for?



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3984 times:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 14):
I'm talking outta my ass, here, but surely there is more east coast connections for UA from ORD than SFO?

It's true that UA have more east coast connections at ORD than at SFO -- even than SFO and LAX combined, which is the real question -- but not by all that much and the additional markets are mostly minor markets. The markets that UA don't serve from SFO or LAX are divided amongst DEN, ORD, and IAD. So now, a SYD bound UA passenger in Podunk needs to fly Podunk-DEN/ORD/IAD-SFO/LAX-SYD. Adding an ORD-SYD nonstop saves one connection for too few passengers to be worthwhile. The main benefit would be for the ORD-SYD O+D market rather than for the Podunk market for every Podunk town which UA serves via ORD but not via SFO or LAX.

Please don't forget that a UA ORD-SYD flight would canibalize SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD reducing loads and yields on those flights. That is not something UA wants to do.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
EWR-SYD operated by CO and ATL-SYD operated by DL are more plausible.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):

Plausible how?

In terms of having the feed to fill a plane with high enough yield passengers without canibalizing existing operations.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 15):
No offence intended, but aren't you the one who accused us CLE people recently of coming up with ridiculous flights out of CLE that never happen?

When a dumb comment is directed toward me, why should I take offence? Or even offense?

This is exactly why I made that comment. CLE people somehow equate their fair city to much larger, more international cities like ORD and Washington DC, and expect flights to match. Sorry again to burst CLE fan bubbles, but CLE is no Chicago and it is no Washington DC.

That is why these two cities support so many airlines and flights all over the world, but CLE flies summers to LGW, and a few Canadian and Carribean/Mexico destinations. People don't generally fly in from destinations far to visit Cleveland, Buffalo or Pittsburgh, but they do come to Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, DC, Chicago, Miami, Boston, etc. Just a fact some people in CLE don't seem to understand. So it would only work if CLE were a big enough hub. But considering COs regional focus at CLE, and considering proximity to EWR, if you are going to connect internationally, EWR is a better place to do it.

There is far, far, FAR more of a chance of an ORD-SYD non-stop flight than a CLE-just about anywhere international, as ORD is an international hub for two of the largest airlines on earth. UA would be flying it, or QF would be to connect with AA. And if it were already possible and QF/UA already owned the planes, you would be seeing SYD-NYC nonstop, SYD-MIA nonstop, and SYD-DC nonstop (though maybe not daily) as well.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 15):
CO does have an Oz presence. AirMike flies to CNS (Cairns).

Very true. However, FWIW, I had a premium AU-US market in mind.

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 15):
Minor, granted, but they did once have more extensive services out of SYD.

It's been a long, long time. The 'old' CO couldn't cut-it trans-Pacific but perhaps the 'new' CO could? As US Majors seek out new opportunities I do certainly believe that BNE/MEL/SYD would at least be worthwhile looking at. Perhaps B772ERs would be too large for CO, but in future with B788s...?

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 15):
Plus, wasn't SQ recently denied the route it did apply for?

Talks continue on that one. Eventually, I think SQ will be given the rights.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
It's true that UA have more east coast connections at ORD than at SFO -- even than SFO and LAX combined, which is the real question -- but not by all that much and the additional markets are mostly minor markets. The markets that UA don't serve from SFO or LAX are divided amongst DEN, ORD, and IAD. So now, a SYD bound UA passenger in Podunk needs to fly Podunk-DEN/ORD/IAD-SFO/LAX-SYD. Adding an ORD-SYD nonstop saves one connection for too few passengers to be worthwhile. The main benefit would be for the ORD-SYD O+D market rather than for the Podunk market for every Podunk town which UA serves via ORD but not via SFO or LAX.

Great explanation. Many thanks. I wish I had a follow-up question but I don't for now.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
Please don't forget that a UA ORD-SYD flight would canibalize SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD reducing loads and yields on those flights. That is not something UA wants to do.

In recent times, QF has pushed down the UA market share on AU-US. Of course, there are several reasons for this (C-11 being a prominent one!). However, to push back at QF (or SQ or whomever else enters the fray) UA may need another product differentiation, don't you think?


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

ORD has been strongly hinted enough times on this list as a new NZ destination to give credibility to the notion that there is a market awaiting someone to serve it from Aus. and NZ. Speaking for myself, transferring at ORD to DTW or YYZ instead of LAX/SFO is a no-brainer.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 18):
In recent times, QF has pushed down the UA market share on AU-US. Of course, there are several reasons for this (C-11 being a prominent one!). However, to push back at QF (or SQ or whomever else enters the fray) UA may need another product differentiation, don't you think?

UA differentiates their product by employing octogenarian FAs -- which QF cannot match.  Smile


User currently offlineUA_727 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 215 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

It sure is a graceful craft - saw it doing touch-and-go's all afternoon in BIL today. Love that new Boeing Livery!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chaocewei
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



Salute,

UA  Wink



"AW - I'm on Board..."
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5806 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

One route UA could definately put the 777LR right NOW (given the money, of course!) is LAX-MEL. The B744 can not do it profitably so UA flies via SYD (concentrating both LAX-MEL & SFO-MEL pax on to one plane, SYD-MEL) they have got to be getting killed by QF offering non stop and full up to date three class service to LAX. And MEL-LAX will be QFs first A380 route.

A brand new fleet of 777LR operating at least LAX-MEL & maybe SFO-MEL would allow UA to compete much more effectively, and IF SQ gets the go ahead something dramatic is going to be required by UA to even stay in the game.

However, UAs money worries will probabley kill it however.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
This is exactly why I made that comment. CLE people somehow equate their fair city to much larger, more international cities like ORD and Washington DC, and expect flights to match.

So it would only work if CLE were a big enough hub. But considering COs regional focus at CLE, and considering proximity to EWR, if you are going to connect internationally, EWR is a better place to do it.

And it always will be. And increased international service for CLE only if the hub were bigger as you state. Many CLE people believe in CO supreme devotion to CLE while it's other two hubs continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Further, they have believed CO rhetorik without putting two and two together:

CO can't fly CLE-LGW with a widebody because all the new ones on order were to replace aging DC-10's. Maybe after the new runway is built is suggested. That was in 1999-2000. Any new routes added with 767's or 777's since then?

After the first year of CLE-LGW service THRU WINTER, the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced the route was doing "Jolly well" and far better than CO predictions. Then CO gave the vibes that it was only doing "marginally" well. Then 9/11 happened and they had an out from winter service.

CLE-LGW needs more feed traffic. Then they wipe out a slew of smaller city service and potential feed to go all mainline and RJ for awhile. (Most since restored with Continental Connection)

Naturally there have been new service announcements that never came to be like Portland, OR and Ottawa Canada, but that happens.

A bunch of new routes opened from CLE prior to this year with a bunch of publicity, decreasing other flights, and ultimately canceling a bunch of the new ones anyway. Yield, yield, yield.

CO simply can't add any more flights to CLE because it is so overcrowded until a new runway is built all the while decreasing flights as that statement was made and before 9/11. Looks like CLE will wait a LONG time to even achieve a level that was there circu 1999 when CLE-LGW began. 50+ flights. Happy new runway usage to all using and paying for it.

There was a time in CO's less than reputable days when CLE was their most profitable hub. Whose fault for any decline? Clevelanders chasing all the other airlines instead? Maybe the vast concentration on EWR and IAH development? But, Gordon Bethune comes to town to bully civic leaders and big business with the threat of shutting down the "hub" because CO is in such a financial crunch, CLE is the weakest "hub", the CLE landing fees are high (thanks to a new runway built mainly for them and all their RJ's), and people are flocking to a few cheap flights offered by AirTran out of CAK. Better support CO or else! Now AirTran has added more flights there and F9 too. GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And on and on...

I guess CO can't compete regionally with DL at CVG or NW at DTW very effectively even with US downsized at PIT and HP out of CMH, not to mention the downsized STL not so far away. They boast of record load factors on the website, but of course, it's all about yield.

CO's big new contributions to CLE in 2005 were renewing a 10 year gate lease with great publicity thereby tying them up and offering a Saturday only Cleveland-Albuquerque flight with an RJ! Whoop di do!

CLE people look to CO for things other airlines provide "hubs" they are devoted to like continuity in service, competitive expansion as opposed to downsizing, and the likes of DL going CVG-CDG, NW going MEM-AMS, or US going CLT-FRA. Year round yet!

It isn't happening and it ain't gonna. CLE is a large focus city similar to US at PIT and AA at STL.


User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
When a dumb comment is directed toward me, why should I take offence? Or even offense?

This is exactly why I made that comment. CLE people somehow equate their fair city to much larger, more international cities like ORD and Washington DC, and expect flights to match. Sorry again to burst CLE fan bubbles, but CLE is no Chicago and it is no Washington DC.

You entirely missed to point of my comment. You accuse us of suggesting ridiculus flights, but than suggest something as crazy as IAD-SYD by UA when there isn't even a IAD-HNL or a IAD-NRT. I would expect to see those before they get one of the longest flights in the world. I'm not saying some suggestions made on this board in regards to CLE aren't crazy, but that we aren't the only ones.

By the way, just because I suggest that I'd like to see Cleveland have more international service, I'm all the sudden equating it with JFK, EWR, IAD, BWI, ORD, LAX, etc? The comparison I was going for (well, I wasn't going for a comparison, but since you want one) was CVG, MSP, etc, where there is more international service, but being similar in size to CLE.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
There is far, far, FAR more of a chance of an ORD-SYD non-stop flight than a CLE-just about anywhere international, as ORD is an international hub for two of the largest airlines on earth.

I agree

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
And if it were already possible and QF/UA already owned the planes, you would be seeing SYD-NYC nonstop,

I agree

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
SYD-MIA nonstop, and SYD-DC nonstop (though maybe not daily) as well.

 confused  What are you smoking?

Quoting Joeman (Reply 23):
CLE-LGW needs more feed traffic. Then they wipe out a slew of smaller city service and potential feed to go all mainline and RJ for awhile. (Most since restored with Continental Connection)

Couldn't agree more.

Quoting Joeman (Reply 23):
CLE landing fees are high (thanks to a new runway built mainly for them and all their RJ's),

Ah, the landing fees argument. CLE has high landing fees, yes, but cheep gate/counter fees. It all averages out to CLE being about the same as many other airports.

Quoting Joeman (Reply 23):
CO's big new contributions to CLE in 2005 were renewing a 10 year gate lease

Shows CO's commitment to CLE. I don't believe that have that long of lease at EWR or IAH. Kinda stupid to sign a long term lease if you are on the verge of pulling lots of service.

Quoting Joeman (Reply 23):
Better support CO or else! Now AirTran has added more flights there and F9 too. GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the heck are you? Mayor White? Are you suggesting we run CO out of town? If CO left town, do you think we would see improved air service? Are you nuts?


The simple fact is, CLE is indeed the red-headed stepchild. It's not going to see improved service for a while. But to say it will never receive expanded service, or that we would be better off if CO packs up and leaves is foolish.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
25 N60659 : Okay. Reality check time. The title of the thread is "777LR: All Eyes On India, Asia & Middle East". How did this degenerate into whether CO should re
26 Ikramerica : I'm not smoking anything. Just because impossible routes don't exist now doesn't mean that if they were technically possible they still wouldn't exis
27 HighFlyer9790 : I think the 777LR is one of the best Boeing aircraft to be made. Maybe down the road Boeing will get some orders from the US...maybe AA, CO, or DL? UA
28 GoCOgo : What evidence do you have that there is sufficient demand for so much Florida-Oz service? Also remember that as this is an ultra long haul flight. O&
29 Shawnnyc : I think SQ offers the one stop from JFK as they feel: 1) They, as a major business airline, need to serve both airports in NYC 2) They are STAR and c
30 Avek00 : SQ flies JFK-FRA-SIN because it does well on both JFK-FRA and FRA-SIN.
31 ConcordeBoy : No USA carrier is permitted to utilize ETOPS207 over the southern Pacific
32 Joeman : The implication of support or hub closure was made by Gordon Bethune. I never said CLE would be better off without CO, but with an operation which is
33 Ikramerica : BUT I WASN'T! You never said "I am referring specifically and only to UA" because that would be silly. I was referring to the routes, not UA. UA has
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
All Eyes On LAX: The Series, Tonight! posted Mon Sep 13 2004 14:58:32 by John
Boeing Planes & Middle East Direct From DFW.. posted Sat Jun 9 2001 03:07:12 by Baec777
Air Asia & Sisters Are Now On Amadeus posted Tue Nov 14 2006 16:40:06 by 9MMAR
Low Concept Airlines In The Middle East & N. Afric posted Fri Jul 28 2006 02:05:40 by Detroiter
AA & The Middle East? posted Wed Dec 29 2004 18:54:39 by SolarWind
India-Middle East Flights posted Mon Jun 7 2004 15:16:03 by Pe@rson
PIA Deploy 777 On Two Middle East Routes posted Sun Mar 7 2004 18:07:18 by Airmale
Level Of Cargo Between India And Middle East posted Sun Dec 21 2003 00:47:50 by Pe@rson
KLM Also Cancels All Flights To Middle East posted Tue Sep 11 2001 19:35:40 by OO-VEG
Middle East Aviation posted Mon Oct 16 2006 08:10:58 by AirLittoral