Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CSA Gives Up EWR  
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Just read on luchtzak.be that CSA will give up EWR and consolidate their flights in JFK.

Why that? Hasn't their SkyTeam partner CO a hub in EWR?

Is Prague served from any other SkyTeam hub in North America?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting JoFMO (Thread starter):
Just read on luchtzak.be that CSA will give up EWR and consolidate their flights in JFK.

Why that? Hasn't their SkyTeam partner CO a hub in EWR?

Is Prague served from any other SkyTeam hub in North America?

sounds strange...any more information regarding this?



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

This is a surprise move, will CSA consolidate their NYC operations at JFK and work more closely with DL?

There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.

Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.


User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

latest news:

http://www.luchtzak.be/latest-news.html


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33052 posts, RR: 71
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

Not the first time this has happened. CSA dropped EWR after 9/11, and resumed it about a year or so later.


a.
User currently offlineFlyguy1 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1740 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2):
There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.

Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.

Will JFK get extra frequencies due to this? I'm sure the EWR spotters are not happy. The last thing they want is another CO 757.



727, L1011, MD80, A300, 777-200, 737-300, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, 737-800, A320. E190, E135, 767-200, CRJ9
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4994 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5087 times:

These are going to increase Montreal to 4 weekly next summer, and 5 weekly to Toronto.

This is confirmed and loaded in res systems.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2):
There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 757-200s range would allow it... From what I remember watching 757s range charts, the farthest they can go with full pax load + reserves is western Germany...

edit: just took another look at the range circle from NY posted on Boeing's website... It might actually make it if it's fitted with winglets. Is it still going to make the westbound flight to EWR though??

[Edited 2005-09-13 03:16:50]


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Strong possibility CO will be announcing EWR-Prague in the next couple of months.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5728 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4):
Not the first time this has happened. CSA dropped EWR after 9/11, and resumed it about a year or so later.

CSA quit EWR first time not because of 9/11 but because they joined SkyTeam and as a result of that their c/s partner for intra-US flights changed from CO to DL (CO was not ST member back then).

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2):
Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.

That sounds very likely. CSA seems to be not exactly rushing its decision to go ahead with badly needed replacement of its long-haul fleet - despite being in much better financial shape then LOT.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33052 posts, RR: 71
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):

CSA quit EWR first time not because of 9/11 but because they joined SkyTeam and as a result of that their c/s partner for intra-US flights changed from CO to DL (CO was not ST member back then).

All I said was that CSA dropped EWR after 9/11, which they did. I never stated any reason for it, but thanks for the info. However, I have a hard time believing that 9/11 did not have something to do with it. CSA re-started EWR even before CO joined skyTeam.



a.
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 7):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 757-200s range would allow it... From what I remember watching 757s range charts, the farthest they can go with full pax load + reserves is western Germany...

edit: just took another look at the range circle from NY posted on Boeing's website... It might actually make it if it's fitted with winglets. Is it still going to make the westbound flight to EWR though??

With EWR-PRG @ 4095 mi being even 115 mi longer than EWR-TXL, which already has faced problems with range on CO´s B752W´s, it can be assumed that service to PRG will be even more challenging (especially on the westbound flight). Even if CO has a good staff at EWR who re-books delayed pax (due to a tech stop en-route) quite efficiently, personally I "wouldn´t be amused" as a pax if this happens frequently (but unscheduled).
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4927 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4623 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If OK's intentions are to consolidate operations in the NYC area, forcing them to choose either EWR or JFK, then JFK would be the obvious choice because of the closer ties with DL. As already mentioned, their domestic US codeshares are with DL, and OK and DL did obtain Anti-Trust Immunity (ATI) as part of the overall SkyTeam ATI agreement among AF, AZ, OK, DL, and KE.

User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3076 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

Quoting STT757:
"Strong possibility CO will be announcing EWR-Prague in the next couple of months."

I was wondering when DL or CO would be doing this. It seems CS's A310's underserve the USA-PRG market a bit.



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3549 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Why would CSA need to operate an A310 to JFK and EWR? Can the people travelling to/thru PRG not go to JFK? The two airports are not that far apart. How good were the loads on CSA for the EWR-PRG route anyway?


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineLH459 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 886 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 14):
Why would CSA need to operate an A310 to JFK and EWR? Can the people travelling to/thru PRG not go to JFK? The two airports are not that far apart. How good were the loads on CSA for the EWR-PRG route anyway?

EWR-PRG was taking a lot of connecting pax through the CO feed, which is much stronger than the DL feed at JFK. From what I've seen in the CRS, both flights seem to do very well!



"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2906 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 11):
With EWR-PRG @ 4095 mi being even 115 mi longer than EWR-TXL, which already has faced problems with range on CO´s B752W´s, it can be assumed that service to PRG will be even more challenging (especially on the westbound flight). Even if CO has a good staff at EWR who re-books delayed pax (due to a tech stop en-route) quite efficiently, personally I "wouldn´t be amused" as a pax if this happens frequently (but unscheduled).
-HT

I think it is time for CO to bite the bullet and come out with a 2nd seating arrangement for the 767-200's.......as we all know they seat LESS than the 757-200's because of a huge BusinessFirst cabin, but PRG and certain longer range markets have very week premium traffic and thus favor the 757-200's, even though they can't fly that far! They need to realize that these routes NEED a 767, so just re-configure a few to serve these markets!



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

CO's 767-200s are perfectly suited for routes like Geneva and Zurich where CO has high demand for Business First Seats.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 16):
so just re-configure a few to serve these markets!

I was only suggesting re-configuration of a few to operate these long flights they are futilely trying to do with a 757



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineCO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

The CO 762 Actually seat more than the B/F 752's, which is the alternative flying internationally, but less than the domestic 752s
B/F 752 16/156 Total 172
dom 752 24/159 total 182
B/F 762 25/149 total 174



There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

PRG is a good cargo market...hopefully CO scheduling would allocate a widebody(767) if they decide to go...as far as I know DME is the next European dest, but things change quick...CSA may want to deploy their A310 to another city, considering EWR/JFK the same dest...

User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Our longhaul 757s are operating at dispatch reliability rates in excess of 98%. Hardly futile.

The rare instances of fuel stops are results of irregular operations (weather, traffic management, etc.) which affect all inbound Europe-US flights, and forces even 767s and A330s down on occasion. This is an exception not the rule.

The 767-200s operate on premium-intensive routes in which we generally sell most of our BusinessFirst seats. Cargo is also a key consideration, but if cargo was the driving force behind viability of a route, chances are we would find a way to get a 777 in there so long as pax levels and yields were sustainable. As we know, the '67 is not an ideal freight hauler. Prague, while surely capable of generating solid yields, is hardly a Geneva or Brussels, therefore EWR-PRG would be a strong 757 candidate for the next round of transatlantic expansion.

Also note that the 757s, starting next year, will operate with a 16/159 configuration for a total of 175 seats, one more than the 762.

[Edited 2005-09-14 02:21:36]

User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
As we know, the '67 is not an ideal freight hauler. Prague, while surely capable of generating solid yields, is hardly a Geneva or Brussels, therefore EWR-PRG would be a strong 757 candidate for the next round of transatlantic expansion.

its certainly more ideal than any narrow body a/c...GVA generates very little cargo biz, especially export...PRG would definitely be better...


User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 21):
The 767-200s operate on premium-intensive routes in which we generally sell most of our BusinessFirst seats.

Do you disagree or agree with my statement that CO needs to have a separate 767-200 seating arrangement for routes that are not as premium-intensive, but that the 757 can't reach?

You do have this already with the -400's (smart).



LT



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineCheco77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

A really surprising news. Pretty weird to see CSA drop a market with so big connection chances to US, Lat Am and Caribean. Definitely, CO will start a service to PRG, since there would be high demand for it.
As another matter, CSA should change their A310s NOW for a newer technology. Their financial situation is extremely stable, so why waiting?
Hope to see a CO 762 in PRG soon.
Regards,
Adam



Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
25 RCS763AV : I always thought it was weird that LO and OK flew to both airports. Its a very costly manner. AV did it and now they only fly to JFK for costs. Finall
26 L410Turbolet : CSA's entire long-haul "network" does not make too much sense. YUL+YYZ, JFK, too bad the tsunami killed the CMB+MLE (via DXB) route, which was quite
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...
Northwest Gives Up On Customer Service (IMO) posted Wed Sep 6 2006 18:54:13 by 747hogg
Heads Up EWR Spotters, N88ZL On The Way posted Thu Jul 27 2006 19:32:36 by Starstream707
DL Seeks MCO/SLC-MEX; NK Gives Up On FLL-MEX posted Tue Jul 18 2006 16:13:37 by PVD757
Rekkof Gives Up. posted Thu Nov 3 2005 18:22:03 by Petertenthije
New Start-up EWR-LON posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:28:03 by LatinAviation
Airtran Gives Up DCA Slots posted Wed Aug 25 2004 18:45:25 by Jlp123
What Is SQ Doing PR Wise To Hype Up EWR-SIN In US posted Tue Jun 15 2004 06:34:46 by SQ452
Iran Air Gives Up On Airbus Order posted Mon Jul 29 2002 17:04:23 by American_4275
QF Gives Up On AN A320s posted Tue Sep 25 2001 07:32:04 by Skystar
Swissair Gives Up SR118, 119 posted Fri Feb 4 2000 20:36:49 by SRA330-223