TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52 Posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
TWA officially announced today that Los Angeles is the airline's 2000 focus city. As part of the announcement, the airline said that American Eagle will be its regional partner out of LAX, providing service to 7 California cities: Bakersfield, Fresno, Monterey, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.
With the American Eagle flights, TWA will have a total of 56 flights per day out of LAX by October 1st. In addition to a recently announced 4th daily non-stop to JFK, a 5th daily non-stop will be added later this year. I believe someone here recently said that TWA didn't seem to be clamoring for a share of the LAX-JFK market, where Delta, American and United compete. This would seem to indicate otherwise.
Additional destinations out of LAX will be announced later this year.
For all those who wonder what a "Focus City" is, the TW press release defines it as such:
"A focus city is a location where TWA offers expanded service to a number of destinations. The schedule in the focus city is designed to complement TWA hub flights and provide options in cities that may be currently underserved."
I'm excited by this news. Here is a link to the full press release:
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
One minor correction: In my initial post, I stated I thought someone had said TWA didn't seem to be clamoring for "a" share of the LAX-JFK market. What I meant to say was "more" share of the LAX-JFK market. Obviously, they already have a share.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
Out of all of TWA's "focus city" strategies, this one seems like the most
likely to succeed. Atlanta was a failure, although TWA was a much, much
different airline back then. San Juan is wobbly. After all, AA pulled a lot
of flights out of SJU a few years ago and if the market leader can't turn
a profit in SJU, why would TWA be able to?
TWA teaming up with American Eagle at LAX is a smart move and the
Hawaii flight (and extra JFK flight) helps a lot.
Good for competition and its nice to see TWA fighting for a good slice
of the LAX business/traffic, while UA and AA beef up flights there too.
MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6349 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Lax.......What a TERRIBLE choice!!!!!! AA and UA will KILL TWA. What were they thinking? Actually, I hope it fails miserably, so under-utilized airports get more flights. I'm LAUGHING at this decision by TWA......They really surprised my by making this dumb-ass move!
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
If I remember correctly, I heard a rumor that MSY would be the next focus city. So when TWA announces that the next one is LAX, well then I believe that someone that likes/lives near MSY might be angry/jealous. Then maybe more under-utilized airports(MSY, he's probably thinking...) might get more flights.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2316 times:
I had the same thought, Lowfareair. Gee, why would TWA want to get in on some of the highest yield routes in the country (LAX-JFK, LAX-DCA)?? It just doesn't make sense, does it? Surely they could make more money on MSY-Louisville, MSY-Cheyenne, MSY-Columbus, etc.
Euroschu From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
What aircraft will TWA use on the LAX-JFK route? UA & AA currently serve the route with 3-class cabins and DL flies the european Business Elite 767's. I would think TWA would have to use upgraded business class in order to attract the high-yield business travelers vs. their domestic First Class.
Regardless, competition is great --- especially with the outrageous business/first fares UA,AA & DL charge.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
TWA flies the 757 and 767 on its LAX-JFK-LAX route.
These are two class cabins, with TransWorld First
on the 757 presumably, and Trans World One on the
767's. No match for AA, DL, and UA, but competition
is good and business travellers might very well be
lured to TWA thanks to its successful FirstUp plan
and it can tout its so called new planes, which,
apart from the 757's and the 763's aren't really
that new. Over half the MD80 fleet dates back
to the mid 1980's, the 767-200's are among the
oldest flying. The 757's and the 717's and the
last MD80 series jets delivered are the truly
new aircraft. For TWA new means its not a
747-100, L1011, 727, or DC9.
Fleet service From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 622 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
Awful lot of celebrating for the announcement of a codeshare with Eagle.Weren't TWA's DOT filings for DCA-LAX based on "New Commuter Service"? A codeshare with Eagle may not constitute "New" in the eyes of the DOT.How about conx times? Do you see Eagle throwing the schedule out the window for 1 flight?
An awful lot of celebrating for one addt'l JFK turn.
This is more of a "Hocus Pocus" than a "Focus"
Yes, I actually *do* work for an airline,how about you?
MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6349 posts, RR: 50 Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Ok so I was wrong. I was given the info on MSY by a TWA flight attendant, but I suppose he had no idea on what the hell he was talking about. I am a bit dissapointed though.......LAX doesn't need any more flights. Just my two bits.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4210 posts, RR: 36 Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2227 times:
Isn't it strange, American Eagle being the partner of TWA at LAX? Will TWA passengers then board a prop or regional jet in the colorscheme based on one of its main competitors? Does AA like that? Will the aircraft be repainted in TWA colours, and its seats contain TWA or AA inflight magazines? Will American Eagle mix passengers they get from the main AA and TWA on one flight?
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Purdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2227 times:
MEA-707 - That's exactly what will happen. TWA will simply be putting their code on existing American Eagle flights. Currently, American Eagle serves as the "express carrier" for several airlines at LAX, including Northwest and, I believe, USAirways. The flights will continue to operate out of American Eagle's new terminal and will have American Way in the seat pocket and American Eagle paint.
Fleet Service - The actual wording of the DOT award is this: "conditioned upon its execution within 60 days, of a signed agreement with Chatauqua Airlines to provide it on-line feeder service at Los Angeles."
I think that the DOT had two goals in stating this. First, that TWA would have a feeder system into LAX to support its LAX flights, such that the requirement serve connecting traffic be fulfilled, which an Eagle codeshare does; and second, to stimulate competition by adding new service to the area. I think that the first goal was probably more important, but we will see whether the DOT objects to TWA using American rather than Chatauqua. I think that TWA specifically named Chatauqua in its application, which may be the only reason that the DOT named Chatauqua as the feeder service to be used.
ContinentalEWR - It would appear that the FirstUp incentive does not apply to LAX-JFK flights, nor will it apply to the LAX-DCA flight. This is an excerpt from their press release today:
"For all flights connecting through the St. Louis hub, as well as for non-stop flights to San Juan and Kona, Los Angeles travelers can confirm first class seats when purchasing a full-fare coach ticket. "
CannedSpam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
Actually, doesn't the order by the DOT for slot allocation simply state that TWA must have a signed contract from a feeder service and not specifically Chautauqua?
The conditions of the order reads as:
"TWA’s slot exemptions: As we noted, one factor that weighed on our decision to provide
TWA slot exemptions is its intention to establish network benefits beyond Los Angeles
through its commuter partner, Chautauqua Airlines. Because this is fundamental both to
the statutory criterion requiring the provision of network benefits, and also to our decision
to select TWA’s proposal in lieu of other applicants, we will require evidence of a contract
with a feeder carrier prior to TWA’s implementing service. Should TWA not provide
such evidence within 60 days of the service date of this order, the two slot exemptions we
are conditionally granting TWA will be automatically returned to the Department for
I read this as meaning the DOT doesn't care if Chautauqua actually flies feeder service as long as there is some sort of fedder service. I believe that the DOT only refers to Chautauqua as an example since this is the example put forth by TWA in the first place.
TWAneedsHELP From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Importantly, and something everyone seems to be ignoring is: "why not Chataqua?" What happened. It seemed Chat. was ready to fly those Saabs out of LAX, what prompted either A) Chat. to back off B) TW to choose Eagle over Chat or C) an impasse between the 2 airlines. Also are these new Eagle routes, or is Eagle currently flying them now? Also, read teh details of the P.R. TW Aviators members can't earn credit on Eagle flights alone, they need to be connecting on a TW flight to puerto rico, hawaii, saint louis, washington, or new york. Seems like a pretty week relationship?
Purdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2115 times:
You're right, CannedSpam, the wording that you clipped does seem to indicate that any airline could provide the feeder service for TWA. The quote that I took came from the end of the "Summary" section on pages 1 and 2 of the document and does specifically name Chatauqua. Later in the document, the verbiage does not indicate that Chatauqua specifically had to provide the service.
As an aside relating to the topic, notice that on page 7, in the section on TWA's application, five cities are named as ones that Chatauqua would link with LAX - San Louis Obispo, Bakersfield, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Palm Springs. The codeshare with American Eagle provides service to all 5 of these cities, albeit existing service, as well as to San Diego and Fresno.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7719 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
Thanks Al for bringing this one foreward, I was out of town for this one.
Right now the LAX focus city seems rather weak to me. TWA put a lot more into the San Juan F.C. by far. TWA is only adding intially one new flight to JFK, 1 or 2 to STL, plus the 1 flight to DCA, with another JFK flight in November, plus the newer service from San Juan and Kona. When TWA went into San Juan initially all the new service was MAINLINE not commuter, only later was Gulfstream brought on in Fl. and PR to provide feed. Now this wouldn't be so bad if the LAX feed was NEW service and not exisiting Eagle service that is flown for every other airline out of LAX, save Delta and United. I find it weak, granted TWA only received one of two requested n/s to DCA, but still there isn't much there to speak of. Unless TWA plans a major mainline service increase in the next 12 months and a dedicated regional feed then I am doubtful about the "focus" of LAX.
Al, you made some remark in my thread that TWA lacks enough equipment right now to really pull off the LAX operation. Based on current deliveries could that gap be met, or if they did not retire the remaining 10 727s or could they easily pick up in very short terms some MD-80s/757/767???
ContinentalEWR, just a quick comment on your remarks on TW's fleet age. FYI, the larger half of TWA's MD-80 fleet, about 60 are the newer MD-83s, while the other 40 or so are the older MD-82s. The oldest 763 is just under 10 years old with most be 5 years or younger. And UA operates all their premium transcons with their 767-200s which are the OLDEST ones flying... about 4 or 5 of them have single digit line numbers.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
25 Acvitale: In answer to a couple comments... Why not Chautauqua? Because the carrier needed significant revenue guarantees to start service that TWA was not will
26 Cody: It is my understanding that Chautauqua will not be getting anymore SAABS. Everyone keeps saying, "We just took delivery of our last SAAB." Besides, I
27 Acvitale: Chautauqua holds LOIs on an additional 18 S340s and they are in fact a combination of A's and B's. I would not be surprised to see Chautauqua go into
28 FLY777UAL: Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between the S340 "A" and "B" models? I thought the only differences were in the aircraft performance (
29 Acvitale: There is no reason why an A model would not be fine for flying in CA. AA Eagle (MQ) has a few there. The A model has less BHP then the B model and the