MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31106 posts, RR: 74 Posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5251 times:
American Airlines will downgrade their daily Raleigh-London Gatwick flight to a 767-300ER starting 3 April 2006. While currently scheduled to revert to a 777-200ER on 1 September 2006, it is too early to tell. The route has been struggling lately despite being heavily subsidized, and is in danger of being discontinued.
In other AA/MAN news, Boston-Manchester service will run an extended summer season, from 3 April 2006 through 12 December 2006. Miami-Manchester service, which has not been the success that AA hoped for despite healthy loads, keeps on solidering on. The reduced schedule AA has implemented has seemed to help the route out. It has been uploaded, for now, to resume 14 December 2006, operating Thursday through Sunday.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5213 times:
Do we know if Boston-Ireland is coming back? Thanks to it being the closest U.S. gateway to Europe, airlines should do well with 757s out of Boston to 'thin' destinations. Where a 757 might be a bit unrealistic from other U.S. cities further south or west of Boston, it makes great sense for Boston. With good tailwinds, a nonstop from Boston to Shannon can be made in four hours plus. BOS-LAX is a six-hour run on a good day...and an ordeal on the 737s that AA uses now.
Chris in NH (who is old enough to remember piano-bar lounges on BOS-LAX DC-10s)
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5166 times:
Not saying AA should do this, but here is just a question I am wondering..
Could a 757 do RDU-LGW-RDU? if so, would it require the winglets and less seats to make the journey both ways?
As far as AA pulling off RDU-LGW.. it's pretty much expected. AA has pulled RDU down enough that I don't understand how the flight is still working. I'm sure that the conglomerate could get another airline to run the flight if it is desired to continue. To AA, I say.. oh well, buh-bye..
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31106 posts, RR: 74 Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5141 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): How the hell can it be struggling? I mean, I see downgrading it to a 763ER so AA can use the 777 somewhere else, but if they sell even 1 seat, it makes money.
Higher fuel costs combined with reduced subisidies.
Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 4): As far as AA pulling off RDU-LGW.. it's pretty much expected. AA has pulled RDU down enough that I don't understand how the flight is still working.
The flight never relied on connections in the first place. The only connections that flights gets that are significant are low-yielding traffic from MIA to free-up MIA-LHR space for high yielding traffic.
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6): The flight never relied on connections in the first place.
I know. But as AA has been pulling routes from RDU left and right to beef up their "cash cow" Miami, I was wondering how long before they pull this one too. No big surprise. I would think that it would be a good route for Maxjet or Eos. Perhaps Glaxo could get BA to do the route..
Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): It could be done with or without winglets.
Sweet.. could RDU-AMS/ORY/MUC work with a 757 or would they require a 767?
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5078 times:
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 10): a major drug company subsidizes the route buy buying a minimum number of seats per flight every day for a fixed price per ticket
Almost.. Several companies around RDU (including Glaxo, the most famous) provides a subsidy (allotment of funds) to AA to provide non-stop service to the London area from RDU. This subsidy basically provides AA a guaranteed break-even regardless if the plane goes out empty. Thus, on any seat purchased on the flight (whether full fare, deeply discounted, business, or first) becomes a profit for AA. In the past, RDU-LGW was also used as a backup for other London flights (DFW and MIA)...
Much like the London Conglomerate did with the RDU-LGW flight, there are other conglomerates looking at providing subsidies to other areas where non-stop opportunities from RDU are not available (LAX, SFO, SEA, FRA, CDG). Should AA discontinue their flight, I"m almost positive the conglomerate and RDUAA will be eagerly searching for a replacement.
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4990 times:
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 14): except that those subsidies need to be a floating scale over an operating period since costs can increase.
DO you know if Glaxo has agreed to pay more per seat?
Wouldn't that lead to basically AA making the conglomerate pay whatever AA wants? I wouldn't do that either. Doesn't sound like a smart business move for the conglomerate. This has been a long standing agreement between AA and the conglomerate. AA can take it or leave it.. if they leave it, be gone... Perhaps Privatiar could do the LGW run..
TravisNC From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4990 times:
Everyone talks about how this flight relies completely on the Glaxo subsidies, but it's interesting to note that this flight averaged only 1.5 less people/flight than BA's BWI-LHR flight in 2004. I think that's pretty good considering the population of the Washington/Baltimore region is so much larger (even though there are several IAD-LHR flights) and the fact that flying to LHR allows so many more connections.
In 2003 the RDU-LGW flight even did better than Virgin's LAS-LGW flight. However LAS-LGW grew by 49% in 2004 to overtake RDU-LGW. RDU-LGW grew by 4%.
Also RDU-LGW averaged only 7 less people/flight than CVG-LGW. CVG, of course, has tons of feed because of their DL hub and they have a significantly larger population than the RDU area.
Switching to a 763 might be exactly what this route needs to keep it going.
Kanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
I'd bet very good money that this route is where the first 763s with the new J seats are going. That's a win, win. AA right-sizes the route, Glaxo and the rest get a VASTLY improved J product and everyone's happy.
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4908 times:
Interesting tidbit of info from the Triangle Business Journal..
Quote "carriers serving RDU already have cut capacity to some markets to strike a better financial balance."
Sure decease capacity and let everybody flock to the only airline adding capacity. Perfect Business sense.
Quote "With RDU's load factors - the measure of how full a flight is - already averaging in the mid-80 percent range, that could make it hard for local passengers to find tickets for the flights in a price range they desire."
I don't know. If I were running an airline, I don't think i would want to let very many people get away. And there are still open opportunities out there that the LCC haven't competed on.
Quote "Back Aviation Solutions' Marty Graham, doesn't expect RDU to lose any existing carriers. But he does think it will be hard for the airport to attract new service at current pricing and capacity levels."
Is RDU priced too low to attract LCC? Huh? 80% load factor before the airlines started pulling flights.. and yet some say their was overcapacity. Hmmm..
Ss278 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4884 times:
Its the cargo which subsidises this route. The drug companies have major manufacturing facilities in Britain and have in the past bought up the enitre 777 cargo capacity to ship their drugs to the U.S. Thus most of the passenger revenue was pure gravy.
If AA is downgrading to a 767 then it would seem that the cargo revenue is perhaps declining. Should that cargo business ever go away, or decrease to the point where AA would actually have to have passengers on the flight to make it profitable, you can kiss the route good-bye.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4849 times:
I would be very careful in interpreting the CAA traffic data. The data makes no mention of frequencies being offered in markets, so making statement like "xx people less/more per flight" is deceiving. In addition the size of aircraft and its seat capacity is important.
If you had the frequency information and then come up with a statistic saying carrier A operated a B747 with only 1 more person perflight then carrier B with a 767, the facts would then show a totaly different route performance then your post.
There are many of private sources plus a few public ones like the DOT that are much better providing traffic and revenue snapshots of routes.
For an example here are the 2004 load factors on the routes you mentioned.
BA BWI-LHR (note its LHR, not LGW per your post)
I could also dig up the average ticket prices, however my point being was you must be careful interpreting any data, and the CAA data only goes to prove the total direct passenger count between the cities. One cannot either rely on the change between the year over year either as that is directly related to the number of seats/flights being offered then a true reflection on the growth/decline of a market. For that you would need a proper O&D analysis.
The Virgin Vegas growth was very strong in 2004 simply as it operated more flights then in 2003.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3384 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4834 times:
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 15): If RDU-LGW is cut, I wonder where AA will use the Gatwick slot.
Gatwick has slots? Anyway, if they indeed do, I don't see AA doing anything to its LGW operation. If RDU-LGW is suspended, DFW-LGW will likely retain 3 daily nonstops, I can't see a fourth operating. I also don't see any other cities gaining service to LGW.
25 JFKLGANYC: Isn't it already a 763? The switch was made already last month. PJ
26 MasseyBrown: SJC and FLL are both "backup" cities for LGW service. Either one of them could probably support some kind of London service. I was surprised that nei
27 Sampa737: If this flight is so heavily subsidized, doesn't it make it basically a charter in a sense? Drug companies have that much money to buy seats like this
28 Kahala777: Is RDU trading their 772 for a 763 so that LAX can maintain a 2nd departure to LHR? KAHALA777
29 Rdu777: JFKLGANYC, The flight switched back to the 777 on Dec. 15th.
30 Jacobin777: LAX-LHR 2x/daily is only seasonal....
31 NLINK: It sounds like a good route for the all business class 737/32s airplane like the 1 daily IAH-AMS.
32 LambertMan: Just curious, but does anyone know for sure what the extent of the actual subsidies are? Obviously there has to be some sort of help given that RDU c
33 N1120A: Since when did AA fly PIT-LGW? I believe the deal had something to do with the drug companies guaranteeing a sell out of the premium cabins, which wo
34 2travel2know: If AA was to pull out of RDU-LGW, which airline would take that market? CO, NW, BA, VS? Because DL, US, UA have hubs quite near RDU...
35 Atrude777: It was an old US Airways route, then TWA bought it from US Airways and when AA took over they now own PIT-LGW. Alex
36 COEWR2587: Is it me, or does anyone else not understand FLL-LGW? Would that do well?? SJC I think i can somewhat understand.
37 Wjcandee: Wait! AA is downgrading service from RDU?? THIS MUST BE DUE TO THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT CHANGES!! JUST LIKE THE LIMA, PERU REDUCTIONS! I'm waiting for th
38 TravisNC: Basically my point was that even though CVG & BWI serve much larger areas, CVG has tons of feed, and BWI-LHR allows much better connections, RDU does
39 MasseyBrown: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they did. When US ceased flying PIT-LGW or when AA quit STL-LGW, somebody could have proposed using the abandoned
40 JFKLGANYC: Your right, it is a 777 again. I was told it was a brief equipment change so the 777 could run the new India flight. But it will go back to a 763 in t
41 BigGSFO: Probably nobody. It's AA's slot and they can use it to any Bermuda 2 gateway. It's not up for grabs if AA pulls the flight. When AA pulled STL-LGW th
42 Supa7E7: Maybe we should talk to our doctor about the RDU-LGW flight.
43 Legacyins: I do not believe SJC can serve LGW. SJC is covered under SFO, with regards to rights to the UK. When AA was interested in serving the UK from SJC, th
44 MasseyBrown: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf31/45705_web.pdf The above is the DOT decision which gave AA backup authority to fly SJC-LGW. It also references th
45 Jacobin777: sux.....I wish AA made SJC a big hub again..
46 BigGSFO: So would I. Heck, I'd be happy if they just brought JFK, BOS, MIA and Hawaii back.
47 Legacyins: Very interesting read. I stand corrected. In my opinion though, I do not believe AA would build up SJC again to the 1998 levels. SW and jetblue have
48 AJMIA: I imagine we will see a 4th daily MIA-SFO and maybe even a 5th before MIA-SJC returns. IMHO I can see MIA-SAN, MIA-SEA, MIA-PHX and an early am MIA-L
49 TWAAF9: Additional Correction: TWA never flew PIT-LGW. However they did fly BWI-LGW and PHL-LGW, both of which authorities they sold to then US Air for $50 m
50 Ss278: Perhaps "subsidizes" is really the wrong word here. A subsidy infers that the the funds being spent are to maintain something which otherwise wouldn't
51 Jacobin777: I would take SJC-MIA..but as AJMIA has said, it probably won't happen.... if AA expands internationally enough in the Bay Area, some of the old route
52 B752OS: Those are some pretty lofty goals for MIA. That is quite a bit of service that would have rely a lot on connecting traffic to Latin America. Looking
53 AJMIA: Of all these routes I think a 4th daily MIA-SFO (probably a 737) is most likely to come next (summer?). Not sure when/if any of the others will come
54 MAH4546: Not really. MIA O&D numbers are less than they could be because of FLL. To get the real look at O&D figures for the region, add FLL and PBI into the
55 ERJ170: I have to disagree. MIA numbers are going to stay pretty consistant unless they decide to drastically lower their fees and thereby allowing airlines
56 BHMNONREV: No surprise here. I flew LGW-RDU last Sunday and while Y was about 80% full and J was completely full, there was me and three other non-revs in First
57 B752OS: Without tourism and feed to South America, the "region" as you call it woould not be what it is. And yes, those are some pretty lofty goals, all of t
58 MEMbase: I'm not aware of FedEx freight being loaded onto MEM-AMS. There may be occasional missorts or AOG parts for grounded FedEx a/c put on board, but bulk
59 Sampa737: Yeah, you are probably right on the cargo. Like I said, I had only "heard" about that, and that was from a former FedEx employee, and my former siste
60 BigGSFO: Actually they really did serve PIT-LGW in the early 80's IIRC. I totally remember seeing it in the timetable back then and reading about how they tra
61 DptMAN: AA already operate a BOS - SNN Ireland service using a daily 757 flight. Any news of the 777 of the previous RDU - LGW route being used on another rou