Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Longhaul Only Carrier In The US: Success?  
User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2065 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

Although EOS and MaxJet would probably fall into the category of longhaul only carriers based in the US, what is the probability of success if, say UA or AA, focused only on longhaul destinations, ie, have a fleet of only 777s and fly to Europe, Asia, and Africa. Could this happen?

I would imagine they would need some feeder traffic, so what if they limit their feeder service? For instance, I can't imagine many people in, say, Amarillo, TX, or Tallahassee, FL, flying to many int'l destinations, so basically limit domestic feeder service to major and secondary cities, and cut off service to smaller cities. The latter could maybe open up a new industry of regional carriers not linked to any of the majors.

Could this prove sucessful? I just think that it must be incedibly hard to have operational models for ultra short haul and long haul run by the same people, and still try to make a buck.

Maybe I'm just jetlagged.

Cheers
Coal


Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOceanic From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Ha, ask PanAm about such a setup and how it worked out for them

User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2065 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

Quoting Oceanic (Reply 1):
Ha, ask PanAm about such a setup and how it worked out for them

Sorry, I'm not that old and didn't always live in the US for me to recall their setup.

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Pan Am were all l/h?

To get back to the original question, I see no reason why not. However, if we look at the large long haul only airlines today like Emirates and Singapore, a large amound of their traffic seems to be connecting passengers traveling from one point to another. The States is not as well geographically placed to take advantage of this.


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12118 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It would be the same thing as Virgin Atlantic only based in the USA!


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33010 posts, RR: 71
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Pan Am were all l/h?

Pretty much. And, post-deregulation, they weren't allowed to carry domestic traffic on most (all?) of their domestic routes.



a.
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
Pretty much. And, post-deregulation, they weren't allowed to carry domestic traffic on most (all?) of their domestic routes.

I thought deregulation meant they took away those restrictions?

I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.


User currently offlineMayhem From Belgium, joined Feb 2006, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 4):
It would be the same thing as Virgin Atlantic only based in the USA!

That's what i thought when i saw this thread!

The only "difficulty" is that you have to have one or more bases where you station your planes and crews in order to have some flexibility and benefit from some economies of scale... Sending planes TATL from whatever city in the US to whatever city elsewhere won't work even if you are on a decent route.. The easy part for Virgin Atlantic was that London is a unique home market. In the US you have a lot more potential home markets, but to pick one with potential would take a long examination i think.

Considering then limiting your feeder service, if you are going to provide feeder service you will pay for the "systems" (being human or computer) you need for connections. Which complicates your process.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
And, post-deregulation,

That should be pre-deregulation..Besides purchasing National Airlines which its lack of national routes wasn't the smartest thing to do either.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):
I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.

...keep in mind PA acquired NA, and thus gained their domestic access.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
Pretty much. And, post-deregulation, they weren't allowed to carry domestic traffic on most (all?) of their domestic routes.

I thought deregulation meant they took away those restrictions?

I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.

I think Travelin man means "pre-deregulation". Post-deregulation there were no restrictions on Pan Am's domestic traffic. Unfortunately they bought National Airlines a year or so prior to deregulation to help solve their lack of domestic feed, but ther route network wasn't the best to feed PA's major hubs.

PA's many years of being prohibited from operating US domestic service (except to Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico) was one of their major problems, especially to Europe where they were competing with TWA in many markets, especially to LHR. TWA's extensive domestic connecting network was a big advantage over PA. That was probably the major reason why TWA was the largest US carrier at LHR for quite a few years.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9234 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3809 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):
I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.

Shoot... That sounds like it could've been a likely TWA or UA flight as well... But I do believe that PA focused mainly on long-haul. The massive fleet of 747s was ultimately too expensive to maintain (probably because it was too big) and the benefits, of course, did not offset the costs - just one of the reasons they went belly-up in 1991 from what I read of other posts on here...

I think this is an interesting post though. The big money makers seem to be the international routes, except JFK-LHR given the presence of AA, BA et al on that route. What about the routes to Asia and the South Pacific? There really aren't that many un-tapped markets [capable of yielding high profits], but I am sure that there would be enough space left open for any airline to come in and make a considerable profit on...

Even at that, you still need some domestic flights. Long-haul can only go so far, what about local/domestic feed for some of those long-haul flights? I don't think there is enough O&D for l/h-only travel, and certainly, I don't think anyone would actually fly into LAX from Asia, only to connect to South America or Mexico or some other routing of the type...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3297 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):

I thought deregulation meant they took away those restrictions?

I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.

PanAm didn't have leadership that was able to take advantage of deregulation. They overspent to buy National and enter the domestic market. Deregulation also allowed carriers with more domestic feed to fly international. PA just wasn't nimble enough to play the domestic game.

If you think about it, with all the domestic flying done by regionals, many of the legacy airlines actually are much closer to the idea of an all long haul carrier today than ever.


User currently offlineOceanic From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 137 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3743 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Pan Am were all l/h?

http://www.airchive.com/Timetables%2...0Am%20Compressed/PAmapCOMP7910.jpg

Have a look. This is how the picture looked pre-deregulation.

Pan Am's sad state of affairs was based solely on their dependence on airline regulation. When that went out the window, the landscape changed dramatically and Pan Am found themselves unable to adapt quickly enough to remain competitive. They absorbed National, which did more harm then good. The fleets were largely incompatible, and the route network was not at all complementary. They basically bled themselves dry, and the management and structuring of the company was so bad at the end that no one would even invest in saving the airline.

I mean, this was Pan Am. They were in many ways the world's flagship airline. Their brand reputation alone was worth a small fortune (as evidenced by the various Pan Am resurrections). Things had to be utterly hopeless in order for no one to come to their aid.

Here's what happened in short order:

-1979: Deregulation ends, Pan Am begins to build a domestic network

-1980: Frank Lorenzo (who was largely responsible for Eastern's demise) begins a bidding war with Pan Am for the purchase of National. Pan Am wins, but significantly overpays.

-1981: National begins to intensely drain Pan Am's on-hand cash level. The Pan Am building is sold to MetLife

-1985: Pan Am is dangerously low on cash. They sell the entire Pacific operation to United. They use this money to order A310s and A320s (the latter of which were never delivered before their demise). They also start a shuttle operation between New York, Boston, and Washington

-1988: Bombing of Pan Am 103, followed by a $300 million dollar lawsuit by the families of the victims

-1990: The Gulf War begins. Pan Am, still bleeding heavily, sells its highly profitable London Heathrow network to United

-1991: Pan Am files for bancruptcy. They then sell off the rest of their profitable assets to Delta (such as the Pan Am WorldPort at JFK), and Delta injects some cash into the airline (what's left of it that is)

-Dec 1991: Delta cuts off its support, Pan Am ceases operations. The end of an era

This is what was left of their network just before the end:

http://www.airchive.com/Timetables%2...an%20Am%20Compressed/PAmap9110.jpg

[Edited 2007-06-14 01:44:31]

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3736 times:

Its already happening with many of the majors. They're all farming out their domestic flying to regionals.... the amount of lift carried by the "regional" carriers is skyrocketing. If this trend continues, soon regionals will be flying most of the domestic passengers within the US aside from a few premium and extremely high load routes.

User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 11):
Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):
I certainly remember flying Pan Am JFK-LAX in 1986 on a 747.

Shoot... That sounds like it could've been a likely TWA or UA flight as well...

It definitely was Pan Am. I was 12 years old and my family and I were flying a 747(!) on Pan Am(!). I was so excited I could barely sleep. I even have a picture of us in the terminal near the nose where you could sea the planes name ("Clipper of ....").

I'll need to dig up the picture to see the actual name of the plane.

Memories....  Smile


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9234 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 15):
It definitely was Pan Am.

Oh, I know man. I was just saying that TW and UA flew that route as well. Of course, with Pan Am flying that route, WHY NOT, RIGHT!??  Smile

And you flew a PA 747... dammit I hate you already...

Eh... no I don't  Smile



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

I have thought about this a few times. I always thought it would interesting if the parent company of an airline split its holdings into a Long-haul/international and domestic product.

In fact I remember thinking it would be interesting if NWA had split NW into and Compass. NW as the international product with a fleet of 757, A330, 787 and 747 and Compass with E175, A320 and DC9s. Compass would have a regulation for flying up to 5 hour flights max and a few cross border routes and NW could fly anything 3 hours and up. Mesaba in this case would be regional and fly only certain distances and hours. Compass and Mesaba can feed Northwest.

Mesaba - Regional
Compass - Domestic / limited cross border
Northwest - International majority cross border

Profits go into a big pot and are distributed back throughout the three companies. NW product would compete on an international scale, Compass on a domestic scale and Mesaba would be the regional bus. Under this idea, each would have different liveries but employees could get moved around between companies based on request or promotion.

I was looking at the CX model and how it is going to have to change to handle the ever expanding Chinese market. Dragonair is still doing the majority of Domestic and Asian regional work with CX doing the high-end long haul. Then you have Hong Kong Air doing regional work. I think this kind of model could work in the US. You have your feed, connections and one blanket company that holds it together.

(reminder: the comments above are an IDEA NOT FACT. they are from the creative mind of Justin "Centrair" Dart.)



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineMayhem From Belgium, joined Feb 2006, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 17):
Under this idea, each would have different liveries but employees could get moved around between companies based on request or promotion.

As legacy carriers pay a lot more than regionals, your personel shifting could cost you quite some money, unless you can all get them on the same pay roll. But the split up in general is not a bad idea


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting Mayhem (Reply 18):
your personel shifting could cost you quite some money,

In my idea the pay would be different for each division and staff could go up if they have the skills to meet the demands of the International (NW) division. There would be three different pay scales. The International NW division would have to have the highest skilled crews and F/A out there.

This is only a theory as I don't understand management that much. But I would think that a person who does well and works hard can get a promotion upward to the next division if it opens up to them.

It is simple and hopeful but maybe really the only way it could work in the US as a corportate structure with feed.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineUSADreamliner From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3143 times:

Yeah, Pan am was the closest thing to an "US- All international Carrier".

An airline can't depend exclusivelly on international routes. Remember Virgin after 9/11.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting USADreamliner (Reply 20):
An airline can't depend exclusivelly on international routes.

For the USA I think this is true. But on a global scales some airlines like SQ, EK and CX (until recently) have made it work.

I think that a Corporation that is International exclusive would be shooting itself in the foot unless it had subsidiaries that fed the international division (as described in my NWA concept). Also they would need to have departures from multiple locations with no real central HUB. Think about how NW runs its pacific ops. Most aircrafts are rotated through NRT and DTW those are the main locations. Most repositioning is done on foreign soil. There is only one domestic widebody flight in the NW schedule (MSP-HNL). A332s are rotated at NRT and SEA (moe NRT than SEA).

So imagine if my imaginative NW concept had mostly a fleet of mid-sized aircraft with good range (787-8). Instead of flying mostly from DTW or MSP, the would fly froma dozen cities with Compass feeding and linking. It might not be perfect but I think for the US an all international carrier would have to have a very different model that that of Pan American, or of the current SQ, EK or CX.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Pan Am were all l/h?

No, I do not think so.

I recall flying from Heathrow possibly via Frankfurt to Krakow in one of these

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wingnut


in 1990 just before PA sold out their intra-European services to UA.

Before PA operated its fleet of 727s out of LHR and other European airports they used a fleet of 737s on this side of the Atlantic. They used to rotate aircraft out of both their 737 and later their 727 fleets back across the Atlantic. I had imagined that when an aircraft was ferried back to the USA it was operated on domestic flights. However it may have been used of short haul international flights, for example out of MIA to the Caribbean. What is for sure is that they were not used on long haul flights


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...
Reports Only In The US... posted Sat Mar 27 1999 16:32:22 by Cool Cat IIIc
Detroit: Most Miserable Airport In The US posted Wed Jun 13 2007 17:12:23 by Jimyvr
AF A320 In The US? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 01:23:31 by Mudboy
DC-10 Operators In The US Other Than NWA posted Mon Dec 24 2001 18:08:42 by Rj777
MIA Now #1 International Airport In The US posted Wed Dec 12 2001 19:08:43 by MAH4546
Would A 744D Be Economical In The US posted Sat Dec 8 2001 14:28:31 by Lubcha132
Non-US Airlines In The US posted Tue Nov 27 2001 14:09:53 by Gsoflyer
If 717 Goes Bye Bye....ERJ190 In The Us? posted Fri Oct 19 2001 00:05:49 by Highliner2
Best Airline Advertisement. NWA (Best In The US) posted Thu Sep 27 2001 21:03:41 by Superfly
Airports In The US Still Closed? posted Thu Sep 13 2001 11:49:04 by United Airline