Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Carriers - Missing On A380 And Intl Routes?  
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 659 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10698 times:

I was wondering why there is not a single American (passenger) carrier that has ordered the A380.

In previous topics many said that US carriers want more flights and choices for their passengers, than one flight daily to a certain destination. However, it seems that most of the rest of the World disagrees and is happy to order the A380 to fly to, say, JFK or LAX.

Why wouldn't the US airlines fly direct from JFK to DXB, JNB, or from LAX to BKK, SIN... with an A380 while on the other hand other international carriers have high loads on these routes?


CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCessna057 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10674 times:

For one thing there jus isnt quite the demand to throw a 555 pax plane from LAX to SIN or JFK to DXB / JNB.

Also, as you had said, many US carriers want both point to point routes and more frequencies on them versus hub to hub routes onces a day or less.



Hold it . . . Hold it . . . HOLD THE FREAKIN NOSE UP!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21501 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10659 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Thread starter):
However, it seems that most of the rest of the World disagrees and is happy to order the A380 to fly to, say, JFK or LAX.

You cite an opinion as fact and then ask why one single nation is out of the loop.

Provide some proof that the rest of the World disagrees, or that they are all intending to fly it to JFK.

Or just continue to believe what you want to believe.

The world is actually buying 787s, A330s, 777s and even A350s (should they ever be offered) in huge numbers, the same planes that the USA carriers are buying...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10628 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Provide some proof that the rest of the World disagrees, or that they are all intending to fly it to JFK

Well, from launch customers of the A380 I highly suspect that AF, EK, QR and VS will fly to JFK. I'm not saying virtually "all of the World", as I didn't hear Albanian Airlines ordered the A380. But I certainly ment most of major international carriers that ordered the A380.

Therefore, if all these carriers can fill an A380, how come there is not a single US carrier doing the same in the opposite direction?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
The world is actually buying 787s, A330s, 777s and even A350s (should they ever be offered) in huge numbers, the same planes that the USA carriers are buying...

That's very fine with me, but my question was about the A380, not about the planes you mention.



CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10590 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Thread starter):
Why wouldn't the US airlines fly direct from JFK to DXB, JNB, or from LAX to BKK, SIN... with an A380 while on the other hand other international carriers have high loads on these routes?

Many of the airlines planning to fly A380s to the US plan on collecting traffic in their hubs and are geographically well positioned to do so by collecting international traffic from neighboring countries that have poorly equipped long haul airlines. US airlines hubs are not positioned to collect traffic from much more than the US and parts of Canada and Mexico. And most Americans don't want to be forced to go through LAX or JFK to get somewhere internationally. US international traffic ends up being split up between a lot of large international airports (JFK,EWR,LAX,ORD,IAH,DFW,MIA,IAD,SFO,ATL) and amongst several large US airlines.

On top of that, the US is a high labor cost country with heavily unionized airlines that make it difficult to service large numbers of economy passengers when faced with competition from lower labor cost countries. I think the era of the overvalued dollar from 1997 to 2002 magnified that problem and forced a lot of US airlines to retreat into the US domestic market and let their international alliance partners carry more of the international traffic.

[Edited 2006-11-26 04:02:32]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePhilly phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

The US carriers are not buying the 380 for the same reason most of them don't operate 747s (and won't buy the 748), it is too big and no longer fits the business model that has evolved for the US carriers. In the US market, the flying public wants frequency and convenience, not a limited number of flights between hubs.

As a result, 777s, 330s, 767s and even 757s fly international routes originally flown with 747s. Domestically, the 757s, 321s, 737s, 320s, and 319s are flying routes that once were the domain of 747s, DC-10s, and L1011s. Most large US carriers that originally flew the 747 long ago abandoned it.

As engine technology improved to give the smaller jets the range of the bigger jets, the bigger jets and many hubs became outdated. No longer did carriers need to change planes in Pittsburgh, Memphis, St. Louis, Kansas City or Dallas (Delta) for transcon flights. Instead of flying larger aircraft into these hubs, they flew the smaller jets directly.

In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, one flew through hubs on flights from between two large cities. These days, the only use of most hubs is to connect small or medium cities with one another or to large cities. Between the largest cities, it is all direct flying in smaller jets than used 20 years ago.

In the 60s or 70s, most flights to Europe were funneled through New York or Boston. With the success of the smaller twins (767 started it), this model was replaced with direct service from most larger US cities.

This is the same reason that Boeing decided to not go after the VLA market. It's analysis of the future market did not show a big enough market to warrant the development cost and time.


User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6761 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10575 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 3):
Therefore, if all these carriers can fill an A380, how come there is not a single US carrier doing the same in the opposite direction?

Here's a thought.. compare US airlines to ROW...

US - International flying airlines have at least 3 hubs.
ROW - 1 or 2 hubs

US - Codeshare on flight throughout ROW
ROW - Codeshare for flights throughout US

US - Flies multiple daily flights on medium aircraft unless demand is LARGE
ROW - Flies single daily, double daily, or weekly flights on large aircraft

US - Splits traffic between different hubs based on location of passengers
ROW - All passengers from a single starting point.

US Airlines don't move large volume of passengers from a single point to another single point at one single time. THe US passenger demands options and due to the large number of competing airlines in the US, if it is not offered by one airline then another one will get that business..

Hope this makes sense..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently onlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10565 times:

AA, DL, HP and CO could not fit the 747 into their operations, much less something bigger.

NW and UA use them mostly for Asian routes, which are much larger than any of the other carrier's Asian networks.

UA uses them for Australia, which the 777, for UA, was not feasible.

I would venture to say that UA and NW would just assume get rid of the 747, but need it for a few routes, therefore having a fleet of them is necessary for their token markets.

Both would go for smaller planes with more frequency than go for something like the A-380 when it comes time to dispose of the 747s. The 748 is a possibility, but I think the 773 more of a probability.

M


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10550 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 3):
Well, from launch customers of the A380 I highly suspect that AF, EK, QR and VS will fly to JFK

I have no idea where QR plans on flying with their A380s, but I suspect it is London. They don't have enough US traffic and they have a long ways to go to build up their hub.

We all know EK's grandiose plans for DXB.

AF dominates long haul air travel in France from an airport in Paris, in which most French long haul traffic is concentrated. Americans would never tolerate the level of centralization.

VS depends on huge O&D traffic from London to feed the limited number of US routes they have using the limited number of LHR slots they have. The US airlines that have the biggest hubs in NYC (CO,DL) can't fly to LHR, or have more than enough slots to provide many frequencies (AA).



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10529 times:

It's that hub or not hub debate again! AA has created a great European network particularly out of ORD by using smaller aircraft. The market could fill a DC-10 to frankfurt but the 767-200 was great for smaller cities and could be bumped up to the 767-300 when demand called for it. The MD-11 and then the 777 finally took the trunk routes. AA could never have created a European network flying 747s. Despite the massive feed at ORD for AA it wouldn't have worked. Look at CO US and even AA they are entering markets with the 757! The 380 is for Asia hub to hub from one airline to its alliance partner for feed. When I worked for AA in the '90s it was all about schedule convenience. We joked if Crandall could get the F100 to fly to LHR he'd have hourly service!

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10475 times:

Ok how about this one, forget about the airlines and deal with the US Govt.
The US govt. does not force all north east traffic through NYC or BOS airports, nor do they limit international carriers to specific airports, the UK and Bermuda II are the exception.

The US govt. has placed customs and immigrations facilities throughout their country to accomodate their citizens, and now that OEM's are building smaller a/c with intercontinental range, there is no longer any need for airlines to force its customers to change planes at a hub to travel internationally.

To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10404 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.

Centralization furthermore is politically unviable. While the NY and NJ might like the idea of forcing everyone to go through NYC, every other state has different ideas.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21501 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 11):
Centralization furthermore is politically unviable. While the NY and NJ might like the idea of forcing everyone to go through NYC, every other state has different ideas.

These are all good points, and demonstrates the progressive nature of the USA airline market. The UK is also good in this regard, and so is Japan as well as Canada. And outside of VS, who is likely to never even take delivery, no airline in Canada, Japan, the USA or the UK are going to fly the A380 right now, and if any do order, it won't be for delivery before 2013-14. I doubt even BA will fly it.

The premise is false. The rest of the world has not signed on. Certain carriers have, and some with a token amount. KE's few orders, VS's few orders that may never come, MH same. China has some token orders as well, for political reasons as much as anything (I've never seen a rhyme or reason for how China orders planes, be they Boeing or Airbus or others). Outside of EK, QF, and SQ, the only real players in the A380 order book so far are the national carriers of the two countries most involved in building it.

And EK buying it certainly doesn't prove much. EK seems to buy EVERYTHING and in large numbers.

Before the OP tries to paint the USA as the outcast, let's see a few more major airlines buy the A380 in significant numbers and demonstrate that it is worth the investment.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
Many of the airlines planning to fly A380s to the US plan on collecting traffic in their hubs and are geographically well positioned to do so by collecting international traffic from neighboring countries that have poorly equipped long haul airlines. US airlines hubs are not positioned to collect traffic from much more than the US and parts of Canada and Mexico. And most Americans don't want to be forced to go through LAX or JFK to get somewhere internationally. US international traffic ends up being split up between a lot of large international airports (JFK,EWR,LAX,ORD,IAH,DFW,MIA,IAD,SFO,ATL) and amongst several large US airlines.

One of the advantages I most appreciate as an international passenger leaving the US is the sigificant options I have. If I want to go to east from DC, I have IAD, ORD, EWR, JFK and ATL to choose airlines and routes. If I want to go west, I have IAD, ORD, LAX, SFO, and SEA to choose from.

Quoting Philly phlyer (Reply 5):
The US carriers are not buying the 380 for the same reason most of them don't operate 747s (and won't buy the 748), it is too big and no longer fits the business model that has evolved for the US carriers. In the US market, the flying public wants frequency and convenience, not a limited number of flights between hubs.

One advantage I as a US passenger is that I won't be getting off the airplane when I arrive along with 500 other passengers. I know that many Anetters can't wait to fly the A380 because it will be the biggest thing in the air. That prospect is the last thing on my mind. Where I have a choice, I always opt for a 767 over a 330, a 330 over a 777, and a 777 over a 744. I simply don't enjoy flying amidst a mass of humanity, and I susepct I'm not alone.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.

 checkmark  The obvious response to the original question, I believe.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9409 times:

I would also add that many in the USA who will be flying where the A-380 will be mainly used may perfer the much higher quality in flight service of foreign airlines like SQ. Such levels of service attracts a lot more long haul premium passangers than USA based airlines can. Of course, those non-USA airlines can afford larger staffing and superior service due to much lower labor costs from their bases.
Those using USA based airlines include those wanting to fly directly from cities other than JFK/EWR, ORD, LAX, ATL or need connecting service within the USA. Some are looking for more FF miles and others find better pricing, especially if they have deals with major USA based air carriers.
Then you have the poor overall economic position of most USA carriers that limits their ability to purchase or lease new aircraft.


User currently offlineSSRJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Why haven't U.S. airlines ordered A380?

Doesn't fit their business models.  Big grin

(ok, stupid answer but a right answer)



When all else fails, read the directions. Else then, get the hammer
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9205 times:

Quoting Cessna057 (Reply 1):
many US carriers want both point to point routes and more frequencies on them versus hub to hub routes onces a day or less.

 checkmark 

Quoting Philly phlyer (Reply 5):
The US carriers are not buying the 380 for the same reason most of them don't operate 747s (and won't buy the 748), it is too big and no longer fits the business model that has evolved for the US carriers. In the US market, the flying public wants frequency and convenience, not a limited number of flights between hubs.

 checkmark 

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
US airlines hubs are not positioned to collect traffic from much more than the US and parts of Canada and Mexico. And most Americans don't want to be forced to go through LAX or JFK to get somewhere internationally.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.

Yes, I think U.S Geography is key to this debate. The population is spread over a wide area. If you live far from a major hub in the U.S., chances are you live closer to another hub or secondary hub. So you will fly direct from that airport, rather than have to connect through the major hub. Whereas in France, most of the intercontinental traffic as funneled through Paris, in the U.S. the populations and centers are spread out.

Also, because of this decentralisation of the market, American airlines need to utilize their intercontinental A/C between a number of different points and markets, rather than always through one mega-center. Smaller A/C are more flexible in this regard.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
I think the era of the overvalued dollar from 1997 to 2002 magnified that problem and forced a lot of US airlines to retreat into the US domestic market and let their international alliance partners carry more of the international traffic.

That is very interesting. I have often wondered why foreign carriers seemed to carry the lion's share or International traffic to and from the U.S. I thought it also had to do with bilateral agreements; since U.S. carriers are better positioned to connect travellers to many other American points, therefore foreign carriers are given more access to International routes?

But I have heard/seen that this is now changing, with regard to American carriers retreating to their domestic routes. They are now considering International routes as areas for expansion, while giving more domestic market share away to the LLCs. The LLCs are not infringing on their International turf as much.



I come in peace
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8920 times:

The reason why no US carrier has ordered the A380 is because the US market is moving in the opposite direction of the WhaleJet. Airlines here want smaller jets for overseas routes, not bigger ones... for example, NW will probably fly new routes to Asia with the Boeing 787 that will bypass their NRT hub. When Americans want to fly overseas, they want fewer stops on smaller planes, not more stops on bigger planes.

Given the trend toward smaller planes, I think if EMBRAER or Bombardier could build an RJ with transatlantic range, the US carriers would buy it in a heartbeat. After all, we use RJs for almost everything else now in the States...



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8716 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
That is very interesting. I have often wondered why foreign carriers seemed to carry the lion's share or International traffic to and from the U.S. I thought it also had to do with bilateral agreements; since U.S. carriers are better positioned to connect travellers to many other American points, therefore foreign carriers are given more access to International routes?

It was the only thing they could do with their high labor costs. Labor represented such a huge cost for US airlines compared to fuel before the increase in oil prices, that faster jets like the sonic cruiser offered a way to reduce total costs while holding fuel costs steady. But with the weaker dollar in relation to the Euro, US carriers are economically more competitive with European carriers now with regards to labor.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 17):
Given the trend toward smaller planes, I think if EMBRAER or Bombardier could build an RJ with transatlantic range, the US carriers would buy it in a heartbeat. After all, we use RJs for almost everything else now in the States...

I doubt that. Most people don't want to be cooped up in that tiny of a jet for more than 3 hours.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineYYCowboy From Canada, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 147 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8620 times:

Interesting thread, excellent replies. The US case for aircraft demand is mirrored in Canada, albiet, a smaller scale. E190's and CRJ's have opened up a whole new world for the average sized Canadian city. International overseas service from all the major cities gives many choices. Like our US neibours, we require frequency and choice. 380 unloading into customs = aneurisim, noooo thankyou, great for spotting though.


Its hard to soar like an eagle when you're flying with turkeys
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8315 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
most Americans don't want to be forced to go through LAX or JFK to get somewhere internationally.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
To make a long story short, the US happens to be a very large land mass, hence multiple large airports abound, de-centralization was inevitable.



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 14):
would also add that many in the USA who will be flying where the A-380 will be mainly used may perfer the much higher quality in flight service of foreign airlines like SQ. Such levels of service attracts a lot more long haul premium passangers than USA based airlines can. Of course, those non-USA airlines can afford larger staffing and superior service due to much lower labor costs from their bases.



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
I think the era of the overvalued dollar from 1997 to 2002 magnified that problem and forced a lot of US airlines to retreat into the US domestic market and let their international alliance partners carry more of the international traffic.

Being the original poster of this thread I really want to thank everyone for excellent explanations and analysis. I singled out a few replies I find summarize his situation best - but want as well to thank all the others for their contribution.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Before the OP tries to paint the USA as the outcast

Not at all and I really don't know where you found that. I singled out the US in this question because it's the largest single market in the World, yet there is no US airline ordering the A380.

If I asked why AZ is not buying the A380, would you flame me for painting Italy as an outcast, or somply reply citing AZ financial troubles, small market size etc? Sad to see you trying to paint *my question* as anti-American in replies 3 and 12, while the others gave excellent contribution to this thread.



CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8299 times:

Quoting Cessna057 (Reply 1):
For one thing there jus isnt quite the demand to throw a 555 pax plane from LAX to SIN or JFK to DXB / JNB.

 checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting Cessna057 (Reply 1):
many US carriers want both point to point routes and more frequencies on them versus hub to hub routes onces a day or less.

Thats actually true. I have read somewhere on the forums last year that the A380 wasnt really designed for the U.S. market. Id look for the thread but it never works.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
The UK is also good in this regard

No it isn't, the UK is very centralised on London and LHR. BA only have one long haul flight outside of LHR or LGW and most of them from LGW are down to Bermuda II. VS are no better either.

BA should have opened a secondary hub in MAN if you ask me. Ala LH in MUC.

The LCCs are good though.


User currently offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8037 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Thread starter):
Why wouldn't the US airlines fly direct from JFK to DXB, JNB, or from LAX to BKK, SIN... with an A380 while on the other hand other international carriers have high loads on these routes?

I think you should have choosen some better examples for your argument.

1. Dubai -- Americans do not want to go to any gulf country. Recent immigrants maybe do but they would need a transfer to a country like Jordan, and Emerites got Dubai covered.

2. South African is no longer a tourist destination for Americans, and you'd never fill an A380 full of expatriots from the U.S.

3. Bankok? Thai Airlines got this covered, and another A380 on that route would insure no profits for anyone.

4. Singapore. I think Singapore airlines got that covered. Besides, without a Hub in Singapore the O/D market would not work for U.S. airlines.

I think maybe an A380 would work for UA from LHR to SFO, but UA seems to enjoy swapping 747's with 777's and adjusting the plane to fit the load.


User currently offlineUALMMFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7158 times:

US air traffic is fragmented by six international carriers (AA, UA, DL, NW, CO and US). Most of the carriers that order the A380 are from countries with one single national carrier or operated out of the slot restricted hub. EK, SQ, AF, LH, TG, MH, VS to name a few. KE, CZ and the Indian beer-airline (Sorry! not try to be funny... I forgot the name) are exceptions.

Take London as an example, all six US carriers fly to London (LHR and LGW) with multiple frequecies from their hubs. In the slow seasons, they are able to cut frequecies to manage loads and cost.



Treat others like you'd like to be treated!
25 EBJ1248650 : Doesn't Northwest still fly to the Pacific and wouldn't the A380 fit well into their routes there? Although Northwest is the only airline I can featu
26 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Kingfisher or IT for short....
27 ChiGB1973 : From which gateway? MSP, DTW, LAX, HNL, SFO, JFK, PDX or SEA. Just by looking at this list, NW would not need anything larger than a 747 and will pro
28 Baron95 : Lets see.... Singapore has a total of 1 (ONE) long-haul international airport and a total of 1 (ONE) long-haul international national carriers. UAE ha
29 Centrair : First of all Awesome Thread. Acabgd I like that you thanked people for contributing. Always nice when the thread starter does that. hmmm I don't see N
30 Post contains links and images VV701 : But two UAE airlines, Emirates and Etihad, have ordered the 380 and both have a fleet that currently includes the 773, 330 and 340. Here are photos o
31 Post contains images Cessna057 : First off, Singapore is about the size of my pinky nail, and on that pinky nail is one airport. I think if there was another airline there then they
32 MBJ2000 : Very interesting thread indeed. The explanations I've read so far all make sense, but no one considered a new factor in this game: the merger fever in
33 SJCRRPAX : No way. I like my choice of 10 or 12 different times to depart to wherever I want to go to. I love going from the airport nearest me non-stop to the
34 PlaneHunter : EK's success speaks for itself - we shouldn't forget they have almost 100 widebodies and they don't have problems with filling both cabins and bellie
35 B737700doctor : The US have more large cities spread out by thousands of miles, people want more options not just one or two. The 380 works in small countries where t
36 Bond007 : Maybe, but that isn't happening a lot. It's largely based on hub-spoke design. Fair enough, but that has little to do with the geography of the US vs
37 SJCRRPAX : This is what will happen in the US if you cut frequency and try to fill an A380. Let's take LA - NY for example. Let's say an airline schedules an A3
38 Travelin man : Your question posed initially did seem to single out the US: No offense, but "most of the rest of the World" does NOT disagree. Some of the largest c
39 777FlyGuy : So, what happens if, God forbid, there is another 9/11 type attack, another SARS type outbreak, the Iraq war spills across borders in the middle east
40 Halls120 : Yes, you could. But US passengers don't want low frequency and large airplanes. AA, UA, and TW tried that once, with 747's departing LAX to JFK all a
41 Airzim : I guess Asiana and Korean Air would be surprised by that?
42 Rampart : I agree, this was very informative and, thankfully, not very combative (relatively speaking). So long as the "singled out" question is smoothed over,
43 Post contains images PlaneHunter : In contrast to many other carriers EK never stopped growing during these crises. Just like many people couldn't imagine during the first Gulf War tha
44 Bond007 : I'm not disagreeing, but that is a completely useless reply without explaining why! Jimbo
45 PlaneHunter : I don't always waste my time for posting obvious stuff which the very users could find out by simply entering two words into a search engine. PH
46 Acabgd : OK, so the real question is - can the A380 lower the ticket prices by so much, that it wouldn't really matter at what time of the day you fly, provid
47 Halls120 : I doubt it. I fly from IAD to the west coast frequently, and in almost every instance, I fly at a different time, depending on my schedule in DC on t
48 777FlyGuy : US carriers don't rely on niche routes as much as non-US carriers do. I can't see this a/c being much more than that. Get back to me in three or so y
49 Jfk777 : A380 is clearly an Asia-Pacific airplane. Qantas and Singapore are the two larger users. USA airlines, even with big Asian ops(AT least to Tokyo), pro
50 Bond007 : Sure you do, mainly because you can, not because you simply must. If there was less frequency (but still acceptable), you bet you'd make changes to y
51 GBan : Whenever I fly in a EU carrier to/from the US it is a large aircraft, it is so full and difficult to book that it is easy to imagine that an even larg
52 FlyDreamliner : They date back sometime too. The 777/A340 sized aircraft is more than big enough for the kind of point to point model US airlines use. Don't expect t
53 Asturias : I think a few of the major American carriers might well want an A380 between their largest hubs, such as JFK to LHR, but they don't need 10+ units. Th
54 Post contains images Bond007 : We'll see what happens to the saturation of US airspace on the US East Coast in 10 years also...especially with at least some increase in VLJs. If fre
55 SSTsomeday : My humble take on it is: No, I don't think it's an issue of American travellers "wanting" something different than Europeans or Asians. It's an issue
56 Jacobin777 : However, if it was the case, carriers wouldn't be downgrading routes during the winter. BA and AA cut flights/downgrade out of/into LHR from/to the U
57 Halls120 : No. You are wrong. If United cut their frequency, I'd start flying with a competitor that offered flights at the times that I wanted to fly. And trus
58 Acabgd : Fine, but what if United, thanks to the A380, could offer you a ticket, say, 30% cheaper than your competitor flying hourly? Would you still prefer t
59 Bond007 : I haven't said anything at all like that!!! In fact, if you read my posts, I actually specifically say that I'm not implying it's the way to go (I ac
60 Gbfra : First of all, thank you very much for this extremely interesting thread. I've learned a lot especially from the contributions made by our American fri
61 Halls120 : It's not that it saves time, it affords flexibility. If UA has one morning and one evening departure, if I take the morning departure, I waste the da
62 Bond007 : Yes, and there's no reason those couple of flights wouldn't be at the times you want. I didn't say there'd be just one 5:00am flight and one 10:00pm
63 OzGlobal : Are there no slot restricted international airports in the US? This is the real question.
64 Halls120 : I don't believe the ticket on the A380 would be 30% cheaper. If flying a large aircraft coast to coast was cheaper, why weren't any of the legacies a
65 VV701 : Which I guess is the reason that BA (which is European) promotes its seven-departures a day service to JFK with departures from LHR at 0820am, 1055am
66 Post contains images SJCRRPAX : This thread could use somebody with a sense of humor. "I am just popping out for a fag" is probably not a thing to say in the US. Welcome to my Respe
67 Post contains images Bond007 : It does Again, read my posts. I'm commenting on reasons why high frequency low capacity flights might be almost a fad...it's an opinion that's all...
68 Halls120 : Every flight I've flown on business over the past year hasn't been "low capacity" - they've been on aircraft with load factors above 75%. No one "nee
69 Post contains images Bond007 : I meant 'capacity' as in smaller aircraft. Well, I'd bet that there's more crowding for the higher freq flights than there are for the others....in f
70 Acabgd : Well, considering the financial state of most US carriers, it seems it doesn't work all that well...
71 Post contains images SSTsomeday : Thank you, Henry Higgins. ...Maybe he knew an American named "Randy."
72 PlaneHunter : Please elaborate. PH
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...
US Changes Policy On Pets And Minors posted Wed Aug 17 2005 21:33:16 by Kearnet
SIN-PER US$60 Return On SQ And QF posted Tue Mar 15 2005 10:38:29 by DocPepz
CO Press Release On Beijing And Shanghai Routes posted Fri Oct 22 2004 21:52:05 by Tjwgrr
What US Carriers Are Hiring F/As And CSRs? posted Wed Jul 10 2002 22:01:23 by Leftypilot79
Do Any US Carriers Fly To Russia, And Africa? posted Sun Oct 22 2000 07:13:56 by ILUV767
US And Asians Routes posted Sun Oct 22 2006 04:43:11 by Walter747
EU And US Reach Deal On Passenger Data posted Fri Oct 6 2006 08:37:28 by Leskova
Lufthansa´s Mayrhuber On A380, 747-8 And B787/A350 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 10:54:16 by Keesje
1 Vs 2 Lavs On DL And US CRJ700s posted Wed Aug 16 2006 20:22:59 by CRJ900
Involuntary Bumps On US Carriers Have Increased posted Fri Aug 4 2006 23:02:23 by Nonrevman