Sju-lax From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2019 times:
We all know that TWA's situation seems to fluctuate every day-for the worst mostly. First the accelerated retirment of 727s, (which leaves a huge gap in capacity to fill,) and secondly the loss of the RAM code-share to our friends at Delta, (even though I'm sure the code-share profit margin was very low.)
In my oppinion, TWA should really consider Riyadh-JFK, which if I'm not mistaken is not currently served nonstop, (maybe by Saudi Arabian through Jeddah?) The JFK-Cairo-Riyadh route basically keeps TWA alive accross the Atlantic along w/ Tel-Aviv, which is rumored to go daily during the winter months. As the United States' flag carrier to Africa and the middle east, TWA should capitalize on these very valuable Saudi Arabian route rights. A 767-300ER could do it I think, but the flight would go really senior and would be hell for the flight attendants, but also one of TWA's gem routes.
I think these are the most profitable right now:
What is everyone else's oppinion? Should TWA risk themselves financially by buying/leasing 777s to make this flight?
Comments always appreciated, and up up and away, TWA!
Cody From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1924 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
No, no 777's. Keep the 767's. They should be able to make that trip. Now will it happen? I thought there was some sort of law where only citizens or people making pilgrimages could go to Saudi Arabia. You are right about profitability on the Middle Eastern routes. I wonder if we will ever see TWA in Kuwait City again?
Jr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 965 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
Citizens, people on pilgrimmage, and people with valid visas who are employed there plus their relatives (spouses and dependents) - can all travel to Saudi. I am pretty sure that should be able to give you adequate loads - if not why would BA fly in daily to Riyadh.
Tailscraper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Actually, BA only fly thrice weekly, or about that, to RUH.
What Jr said about entry requirements was correct though.
The problem with flights from the US, is that the traffic would be highly seasonal and nothing else. Yes, there are large concentrations of foreigners, including US citizens, working in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dharan (mainly for ARAMCO), and most are families;
They return back to the US for the summer holidays about now, and at this stage, most fly out with a BA service from either of those three cities, to LHR, where they then connect to a US-bound flight.
They'll all fly back in September. I'm sure TWA could do a roaring trade during the summer season, but as far as going to the US is concerned, that's it, until next summer.
At winter and easter, most foreign workers in Saudi, fly off to Dubai or South Africa/Australia, or drive across the causeway bridge to Bahrain for a week's holiday or more, but not back to their home countries.
That's where TWA would lose out-no traffic during the rest of the year-what are they going to do outside summer? Perhaps they should operate seasonally. Tourists are out of the question, there's no such thing in Saudi. Why don't they try out Dubai from Cairo or Tel Aviv? That would be more sensible economically.
UK-TWA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1806 times:
First of all, to correct a false assumption here: A 767-300ER CANNOT make the trip from JFK to RUH nonstop. The return trip against the prevailing western winds would be the main problem. Secondly, TWA enjoys local traffic rights on the CAI-RUH leg, which adds significantly to the total revenue of this flight.
However, rumor has it that TWA is looking into launching an entirely new (!) route from JFK to the Middle East, and may lease in a few 767-200ER for this purpose, which could fly JFK-Mideast nonstop. IMO, the most likely destinations would be either Kuwait City (to expand the codesharing agreement with Kuwait Airways) or Dubai, which has shown impressive growth figures in recent years and might warrant nonstop service from the U.S.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1954 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1798 times:
I recently read in my local newspaper that the Saudi government has recently decided to start granting a limited number of tourist visas to Saudi (partially in order to help Saudia Airways' revenue.) A travel article was recently published in our local daily and the author was a staff journalist who recently returned from an organized tour to Saudi Arabia. It even gave a number of a travel agency booking tours to Saudi. It said tours started around $6800. So Saudi has decided that some tourists are OK as long as they behave themselves. (definitely no alcohol!)
TWAneedsHELP From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
I like JFK-Kuwait City, thats an ambitious route that could work, anyone have any more info? As for Dubai, they would face some big competition with Emirates (regarded as a first class airline). Perhaps they could both make the trip (you know share flights like KLM/NW over the Atlantic) and Emirates would provide feed for TWA passengers transiting to India and beyond. I don't however see a TLV-RUH or TLV-Kuwait City. The politics just haven't caught up on that one. Whats interesting I found is that without flying via Europe they're is very little access for Israeli travellers going east to China, Japan, etc.... I'm sure some Israelis make it over there? Any possibility of TWA involvement in this one, perhaps some cooperation with LY?
As for the RAM codeshare, I didn't know TW lost that one. Its really negligible however, but it does clearly highlight the handicap the airline has by not being "alligned." Not that its the STL-based carrier's
Tailscraper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Sorry, it IS in fact the case that "tourists" are being allowed into KSA (Kingdom of Saud. Ara.) The conditions are that you be travelling as part of an escorted, organized tour group, recognised by the Saudi authorities.
You still can't go out by yourself, unless you have relatives out here (you get a "Visit Visa", or are a foreign worker ("resident Visa") or are on the Hadjj, or you're a Saudi Citizen.
So it's still pretty hard to fly down here! TWA would face immense competition out of DXB, from EK and all the other European airlines that come to visit-but that's the way the industry works-EAT or BE EATEN!
I say go for it!, it would be interesting to have a US airline down here. There are sizeable communities of US/Canadian citizens working out here (that's Dubai, Dharan, Jeddah, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Lebanon, you get the picture.
TWA just needs to convince people to fly back home for Xmas and Easter as well as Summer. DXB would be quite a good choice, TWA would probably get year-round loads from there.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7719 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
A JFK-Middle east/Persian Gulf route could work. The 767-300ER would not be able to fly back to New York without severe weight restrictions, or at all. A 767-200ER could do it, and the smaller capacity would improve load factors. But I don't think a new middle east destination from JFK is the right move... lack of equipment, uncertain loads, etc... maybe if it was tagged off a CAI or a CDG it could work. Honestly Delta or Continental or American are better suited to pursue routes like that, they have the feed from the Trans-atlantic gateways, plus the equipment on hand to do it. Perhaps a JFK-IST route would be better. Delta recently started flying there. But Istanbul could be a good idea. As well as some near-eastern cities like Casablanca.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4792 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
FWIW, TWA is a well-known name in the region, and I expect that we will see more flights there again sometime soon, where they can be shown to be profitable. Don't underestimate the importance of the CAI-RUH segment. The local traffic is substantial; the route is always *packed*, at high yields, and there has long been a rumour that it alone makes the JFK-CAI leg viable. Kinda sad that folks in foreign countries give TWA more respect than it gets at home, but that is changing for the better.
Ahem From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1747 times:
>>>I say go for it!, it would be interesting to have a US airline down here. There are sizeable communities of US/Canadian citizens working out here (that's Dubai, Dharan, Jeddah, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Lebanon, you get the picture.
TWA just needs to convince people to fly back home for Xmas and Easter as well as Summer. DXB would be quite a good choice, TWA would probably get year-round loads from there.<<<
US Embassy staff in KSA already fly TWA to get home.
FrontierMan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 413 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
I have a sugguestion. Why doesn't TWA offer a Istanbul-JFK route. Not a lot of US airlines offer that. I don't know how profitable would be, however Istanbul is a very big city. Also, I have a question. Why did TWA ditch the JFK-London route in favor of a JFK-Saint Louis route. Why make travelers go out of the way to STL when they could save time going directly to JFK?
Cody From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1924 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1726 times:
I think the oly authority TWA ever had from JFK was into Heathrow. Therefore, when they sold those routes, they lost the JFK-LHR segment. From STL, I don't think TWA ever flew to Heathrow, just Gatwick. That is why it exists today and the New York route does not.
Cody From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1924 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
Yes and no. It was a dumb move to sell LHR if you look at Ichan and the scheme of things. He got rid of all the good stuff and basically ruined TWA. But no, because at the time that the LHR routes were sold, I think TWA was hanging on its last rope and needed money quick (like to make payroll). That is what I think. Therefore, had they not done what they did, they may not had made it this far.
TWAneedsHELP From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
Hindsight is always 20/20. So yes now, it looks like a terrible sale that really put TW into the troubles it faces today. But than who knew? Perhaps Icahn and Co never thought that US/UK Open SKies treaties would move at such a snails pace and that TW might be able to reenter the market at better times, economically. With US/UK bilateral negotiations underway and many airlines looking for LHR opennings, perhaps TW will regain that authoirty. I know B. Midland wants flights to the US, so this could be the tradeoff. Except if room does open up for one more airline to LHR, TW probably won't be among the first to get it. CO (from EWR) and DL (from ATL or JFK) would probably have a slightly stronger case/position.
One more thing, isn't JFK-CAI a profitable, successful route? TW has increased frewquencies recently to 4 times weekly. I think they should increase to daily.