Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airways To Apply For PHL-PEK In 2009  
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11454 times:

Looks like one of their supporters jumped the gun in filing with the DOT, but see here, a support letter from the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, in support of US Airways' proposed direct CLT-PHL-PEK service to begin in 2009.


I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLIPZ From Austria, joined Jun 2006, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11431 times:

Great!
If they get the rights to fly the route, would this be the 1st ever direct (and nonstop) link to Asia from Philadelphia?

[Edited 2007-06-28 22:51:30]

User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11408 times:

One-Stop Single Flight Number... hmmm..

Does that mean an A320 to PHL and then a A345 to PEK?

Interesting that no times, or equipment was mentioned as with American Airlines application..

Joking... Wouldnt a 744 be an intersting aircraft to add to the US network?


-JD


User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11362 times:

That's because it's not the US DOT application. It's a NC political support document submitted to the DOT. Either the DOT application itself has not yet been formally filed or has not yet been entered into the public DOT data base. Good strategy though - similar to UA's previously awarded application.

User currently offlineXiaotung From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11355 times:

What happens to Shanghai?

User currently offlineClipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11246 times:

Quoting Xiaotung (Reply 4):
What happens to Shanghai?

2 reasons....

1) Beijing is the Capitol.
2) Closer to PHL and can be operated by the A332s they are expecting in 2009.

PHL-PEK = 5977 NM
PHL-PVG = 6452 NM

Range of A332 = 6700NM


my  twocents 


User currently offlineXiaotung From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11124 times:

Yes. I meant US previously was going to apply for Shanghai. Does it mean now they have given up on Shanghai and opted for Beijing?

User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11038 times:

Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 5):
Quoting Xiaotung (Reply 4):
What happens to Shanghai?

2 reasons....

1) Beijing is the Capitol.
2) Closer to PHL and can be operated by the A332s they are expecting in 2009.

If US flies to PEK from PHL it will likely acquire and use the optional 340s, not the 332s. The polar route would probably require weight restrictoins for the 332, plus the 343 will be more competitive with the 777/787s - the 332s are too small for a 14 hour ride. From an economy standpoint on such a long route, the 4 engine 343-500 should do OK, compared to the 332 and since cargo will likely be a major revenue source, the 340 is a better choice. US will also likely want to expand to other further Asia destinations if PEK is successful.


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11002 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
plus the 343 will be more competitive with the 777/787s

What are you talking about? How is the 343 more competitive with the 777/787? It is less fuel efficient, doesn't have the cargo capacity, and has a smaller width cabin.

Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
the 332s are too small for a 14 hour ride

What are you talking about again. It has the same cabin width as the 333, 342, 343, 345 and 346. Are you trying to say thay people now require a longer plane for longer trips.

Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
From an economy standpoint on such a long route, the 4 engine 343-500 should do OK

Why do you need 4 engines when a 2 engine bird can support the route more efficiently?



Tailwinds!!!
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8568 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10967 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
If US flies to PEK from PHL it will likely acquire and use the optional 340s, not the 332s. The polar route would probably require weight restrictoins for the 332, plus the 343 will be more competitive with the 777/787s - the 332s are too small for a 14 hour ride. From an economy standpoint on such a long route, the 4 engine 343-500 should do OK, compared to the 332 and since cargo will likely be a major revenue source, the 340 is a better choice. US will also likely want to expand to other further Asia destinations if PEK is successful.

If PHL-PEK is at all possible with the A332, that is the jet I would expect them to use. US does not like to over-equip.

But, it is an open question whether the A332 can really do the route. Weight restrictions are fine for a few years until the A350s arrive.

If that is their strategy, I admit it is very clever!


User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10799 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 8):
Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
plus the 343 will be more competitive with the 777/787s

What are you talking about? How is the 343 more competitive with the 777/787? It is less fuel efficient, doesn't have the cargo capacity, and has a smaller width cabin.

You need to read the entire posting not just snippet's to create an erroneous assumption. My point is the 343-500 is better competition for the 777/787 than the 332 on a 14 Hour trip, both in cargo and passenger capacity.

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 8):
Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
the 332s are too small for a 14 hour ride

What are you talking about again. It has the same cabin width as the 333, 342, 343, 345 and 346. Are you trying to say they people now require a longer plane for longer trips.

That is exactly what I'm saying - a longer plane is more comfortable for a 14 hour flight.

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 8):

Why do you need 4 engines when a 2 engine bird can support the route more efficiently?

Prove it for a 14 hour non-stop flight (332 versus 343-500). Also, Better support comes from more than just fuel burn rate. There is the added benefit of much more cargo and passenger revenue with the "LONGER" plane - check the 332 versus 343-500 stats.


User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10786 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 9):
If PHL-PEK is at all possible with the A332, that is the jet I would expect them to use. US does not like to over-equip.

They may not want to over-equip, but they do want to propose a reasonable and winning solution for the route which the DOT feels merits the award and I do not feel the marginal 332 is it.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6483 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10682 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 10):
That is exactly what I'm saying - a longer plane is more comfortable for a 14 hour flight.

What inflight passenger study if any verifies this? Or is this just your preference, if so why?


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8410 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10653 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 10):
There is the added benefit of much more cargo and passenger revenue with the "LONGER" plane - check the 332 versus 343-500 stats.

What exactly is an 343-500? The A345 is a very expensive aircraft to operate especially as a very small sub-fleet. It is a niche aircraft. The A343 is cheaper but it's not that much more efficient than an A332. If the A332 can do the route without significant penalties, that will be the ideal aircraft for US to use. However, I doubt the A332 can be used on such a long route without penalties so maybe US will get a few A343's if they get the rights to fly the route. IIRC, the longest scheduled A332 non-stop route is/was TAM's CDG-GRU which has a planned fuel stop, and that's nearly 900nm shorter than PHL-PEK.


User currently onlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1228 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10619 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 13):
IIRC, the longest scheduled A332 non-stop route is/was TAM's CDG-GRU which has a planned fuel stop, and that's nearly 900nm shorter than PHL-PEK.

I think the concensus is that AF NRT-CDG is the longest A332 route. Its longer than GRU-CDG anyways.

I think PHL-PEK would be pushing it for a A332 though. I expect them to get A340s of some description if successful.



Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlineFUN2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10577 times:

One of the factors for UA's award IAD>PEK was aircraft size. They had a 347 seat 744. A 200 (approx.) seat 332 will be up against 347 seat 744's from UA and 285 seat 777's from CO and AA's 777's (a fewer seats). So, if aircraft seating is a factor this time, the 340 will be needed. Of course, the govenment can change its past award strategy at anytime.

User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10539 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 10):

That is exactly what I'm saying - a longer plane is more comfortable for a 14 hour flight.

I may have been able to agree with you on the other points, but this one is silly. The comfort really has to do with the particular airlines configuration. A longer plane may just mean more people.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 13):

What exactly is an 343-500? The A345 is a very expensive aircraft to operate especially as a very small sub-fleet. It is a niche aircraft. The A343 is cheaper but it's not that much more efficient than an A332.

Is the A343 more efficient than the A332? I have much different stories in the past.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10537 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 13):
What exactly is an 343-500?

LOL... Maybe he meant an A340-300 with 500 seats, US Airways could call it Sardine Class..  crowded 

Seriously, what happened to the rumor of US Airways gaining the A340-500 ships?

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 13):
The A345 is a very expensive aircraft to operate especially as a very small sub-fleet. It is a niche aircraft.

 checkmark 

100% Agreed, it is a great plane for a niche market. The only way to have a decent profit margin on the A340-500 would be to have a larger fleet with an extended utilization of long-haul ops such as PHL-HKG, PHX-MNL, PHX-SYD, PHL-BOM. But it is very unlikely that any of those routes will ever happen within the next few years..

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 13):
If the A332 can do the route without significant penalties, that will be the ideal aircraft for US to use.

I would have to disagree it is to small of an aircraft and would be looked down upon due to the limited number of seats offered.

Quoting Vega (Reply 7):
If US flies to PEK from PHL it will likely acquire and use the optional 340s, not the 332s.

I have a very strong feeling that they may very well opt for the A340-600, in addition I would expect up to 9 frames.

The plan or so I have heard is for:

PHL-PEK (If unable to gain authority); PHL-HKG
PHX-AKL(*A hub)-(Final destination being Sydney or Melbourne)
PHX-ICN(*A hub)-(Final Destination rumored as DEL, BOM, or SIN(*A hub)).

That would suffice for daily service on all three routes. The question is how expensive would it be to operate a fleet of A340-600 ships? The other thing I would like to mention is that with the advent of the A340-600, if it were to happen could US Airways garner 5th freedom rights to fly from ICN to DEL, BOM, or SIN?

There of course are other grandiose rumors floating around US Airways including:

PHL-NRT or KIX nonstop
PHX-NRT or KIX, nonstop

(These I believe would be much better suited to the operation of an A330-200, or A340-300 however since NRT is slot controlled, and the cost of operating at Osaka is so expensive I could easily see an A340-600 being used for additional capacity, hence not needing a third of fourth flight to the Japanese market).

The US Airways fleet in any case should become very interesting in the next few years.

-JD


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8568 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10462 times:

Phoenix-Asia would be weak. The only Asia feeders at Phoenix are Tucson, San Diego, ABQ and Texas.

PHL's Asia feeders are much stronger. That will be their Asian hub.

The A340-600 would be quite shocking to see at US. We are talking the equivalent of a 773ER or 744. I do not think US has the physical power to support such a large jet.

The biggest US can handle is IMO the A343X. Big jets like the 744 could be very dangerous to US. They do not have the market power to fill it.


User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10445 times:

The main reason for pushing back the date is because we aren't able to get the aircraft to fly the route in time. They mentioned it to us, saying we would give up this round and wait until next year so we have more time to get a new plane. We have the options to get A340's under the new order, so that would be the aircraft of choice I imagine. They did not say which model though.

User currently offlineBAGoldEx From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10438 times:

I know there are not many of them out there, but would the acquisition of a few A340-200's be appropriate for the possible China route?

User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):
The only Asia feeders at Phoenix are Tucson, San Diego, ABQ and Texas

There are a lot more to add to the list namely:

DEN, COS, SLC, ONT, LGB, SNA, BUR, LAX, RDU, MCO, TPA, FLL, DCA, MEX,
GDL, SJO, STL, MCI, ORD, MKE, MSP, OMA, MSY, ATL, CLT, IND, CLE, CMH,
YYZ, OKC, ICT, DSM. MEM, PIT, DRO, YUM, FAT, SBA, CLD, PSP, BFL, SBP,
SBA, MOD, SMF, RNO

Yes, people do backtrack, it happens daily on every airline..

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):
The A340-600 would be quite shocking to see at US.

The US Airways A330-300 currently holds - 256 Y 30 J

The Lufthansa A340-600 currently holds - 263 Y 72 J

The Cathay Pacific A340-600 currently holds - 220 Y 60 J 8 P

I think with the proper investment in a new long-haul premium product(which is rumored to be in the works to replace Envoy), it would not be that hard to fill a A340-600 on US Airways metal to Asia. Remember Asia demands higher yields year-round that Europe, and the demand for premium cabins to Asia is stronger than it is to Europe. Again it is workable only with the right investment and long-term commitment to such a program. I believe that we are all going to be seeing very big improvements over the next few years at US Airways, that is of course if they do not attempt another merger. Which is fodder for a whole other topic.

-JD


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4020 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

Shouldn't USAirways start with PHL-NRT first?

It's amazing how quickly airlines line up to lose money when government agreements get in the way of market efficiencies.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10328 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22):
Shouldn't USAirways start with PHL-NRT first?

I have a strong feeling that US does not want to pay the going rate for a slot at Narita.. Nor do I feel they want to pay the cost for operations at Narita.. I could be very wrong however..

-JD


User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10315 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 23):
I have a strong feeling that US does not want to pay the going rate for a slot at Narita.. Nor do I feel they want to pay the cost for operations at Narita.. I could be very wrong however..

That is one of our preferred markets...I believe it was Scott Kirby that stated it. If we can't get to China, they are going to try for Japan.


25 Evan767 : I think that depends on the seat.
26 TK787 : Here is one of those stories, not taking any sides: On the 8xweekly IST-JFK route (8072 km) TK uses 2x332s, and the rest with 343s. Here are some fac
27 Usairways85 : They were from AC and went to another carrier, TAM i believe
28 Post contains images Malaysia : All I still want to see is LAS-BKK and PHX-BKK and LAS-HKG and PHX-HKG and LAS-SYD and PHX-SYD and LAS-SIN and PHX-SIN Ding ding, since US is a nobody
29 FLYGUY767 : Thank You.. I thought this was the case but I was not sure.. Isnt SQ and EK getting rid of their A345 soon? -JD
30 Humberside : Would PHX-HKG be considered, expecially if US get PHL-PEK and dont do PHL-HKG?
31 ConcordeBoy : Careful cher: it's the location of the capitol... is the capital. ...you make the mistake of assuming US' A332s will be capable of attaining the maxi
32 Dutchjet : This is news, please tell us more! Maybe this information is just what Airbus needs to get the slow selling A346 program back on track? EK - no, they
33 Vega : Simple, I would rather have 176 Feet of cabin to browse and walk around in on a 14 hour flight than 147 feet. Of course some don't mind Trans Atlanti
34 Dutchjet : OK.......most dont stroll on their flights, but if the extra 29 feet makes you happy, fine with me. By comfort I thought that you were suggesting tha
35 Post contains images Mah584jr : Wow, I've never even thought about something like this. Judging only from your comments, you seem to be someone very into the size of aircraft versus
36 Captaink : You are not being objective Vega. The majority of passengers, won't share you sentiments. Many times I notice that most passenger simply stay put, un
37 FCYTravis : But that's not really true. US will not be competing against those carriers, because US is applying for the available new-carrier selection in 2009.
38 FCYTravis : Neither of those figures is true - unless you're in the C cabin, you can't "browse and walk around" up front.
39 Post contains images Tornado82 : Is there really going to be this much demand for this route on US? US isn't known as a long-haul carrier by any means, and suddenly they're jumping in
40 Usairways85 : The city itself may be losing its population but the surrounding area is still large and the population is not declining
41 Mah584jr : You're correct that Philly itself isn't growing but the Philadelphia metropolitan area has continued to grow. It grew by 4.6% from 90 to 00 and still
42 Copaair737 : How? US doesn't even fly to MOD at all. It would require a stop in SFO or LAX. You got your wires crossed buddy.
43 Steeler83 : True, downtown lost some 60,000 people since 2000, according to the state's estimated census data for 2006. Philadelphia is said to have an estimated
44 Tornado82 : Then it just passed Lower Macungie Twp, up near Allentown, which was #1 when I lived there.
45 Post contains images Steeler83 : That report also said that among the states largest cities, Allentown actually grew... by a few hundred... Heck, it's still growth...
46 Vega : We'll just have to wait until the application is filed by US and see who is correct regarding the aircraft type. If I am incorrect, I'll admit it - yo
47 Tornado82 : Yeah, and how much of that airport-defined catchment area is also claimed by ABE, ACY, etc? Let's take the up and coming Quakertown area for instance
48 Steeler83 : Sorry mate, I was actually referring to the city/county as a whole... The downtowns of Philly and the Burgh are indeed growing very rapidly, with Pit
49 Post contains images Tornado82 : Hahahaha... no I'm on the west side now buddy. (Thank God!) I'm talking very local, Uniontown's finest daily rag.
50 Post contains images FCYTravis : You missed the point - you can't walk around the full length of the aircraft if you're in Economy because Y-cabin pax are not permitted in the C-cabi
51 Post contains images Steeler83 : What is the whole point of whether or not you're able to walk around the cabin? People like spacious aircraft so that they don't feel cramped in their
52 Anetter123 : I'm sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it. This is one route I just can't see getting approved. They don't even fly to NRT (not that NRT doesn't h
53 Flighty : That has been said. However, they are talking long term. The 767 will be around for another 8 to 10 years. After all, they want to use the A332 for P
54 Flyboyaz : Actually we will start retiring the 767's when the first A332's are delivered in 2009. They said they would be replacement aircraft, not growth. I wo
55 Flighty : Yeah, they are just saying that. It can be growth aircraft if US decides they need more widebodies in service.... which most people believe they do.
56 Centrair : Though I think it is cool that US is trying for China. I think they should try Japan and Korea during the wait for approval. Though NRT is high on the
57 Panamair : QF flies into NRT from SYD, MEL, and PER with their own metal.
58 Post contains links Vega : Here is a comprehensive view of the application submitted today. They even included a detailed schedule with Flight Numbers for PHL-PEK, starting on M
59 Post contains links Philadelphia1 : Here is the tentative Schedule I guess. notice the 8's in the flight numbers? i wonder if its a luck thing being that a lucky chinese number is 8. And
60 Centrair : My bad...meant QR ...one key miss.
61 Post contains links and images TUNisia : Lools like they are planning to use a 767 from CLT-PHL and then a A340-300 on PHL-PEK. http://www.usairways.com/awa/content...room/newservice/about/se
62 Post contains images Acey : Once replaced by the 77L on YYZ-HKG, the two of them will eventually fly YYZ-PEK for AC for a few months before heading off to Brazil in October. I w
63 CO787EWR : Hmmmm does anyone know where the A343 is coming from. Will the CLT-PHL-PEK work because didnt AA try DFW-ORD-China IIRC. Does anyone have data on A343
64 Post contains links Acey : I just tried to address it, but it's all just speculation at this point. Only time will tell. http://www.airbus.com/en/
65 Post contains images PHLwok : Yup. Check which route UA 888 flies That leaves very little margin for error, or to absorb PHL (or other) induced delays, which are common in the tra
66 Acey : Kind of like how WN 711, NW 711, DL 711, and HP 711 (last year) all fly to/from LAS?
67 Post contains links PHLwok : We're making the assumption it'd be a used bird, and 343's should certainly be easier to come by compared to 345's, but on http://www.usairways.com/a
68 Vega : It's very likely, in fact almost certain, they will acquire and use at least 2 aircraft for this route - one as a spare or backup and RON or use it el
69 Post contains images Flighty : Vega, they will need at least 2 aircraft just to run the route. It is over 12 hours, certainly including the 2+ hours needed on the ground on both sid
70 Post contains images Philadelphia1 : According to Wikipedia, and therefore facts may be debatable, the range on a fully loaded A340-300 is 75,500 kg (166,500 lb) and with a range of 7,400
71 Flighty : Longest 343 route? Will it require the newest type of A340-300E? Or will an older one do it?
72 Vega : Where did you get that number (3000 meters) for an MTOW (608K) 343 ? In any event, AF, LH, BA and others have been flying 343s and 747s in and out of
73 Centrair : Why A340-300s. WHY? Why not new build A345s? How about 8 or so, then they could go for Japan, Korea and HKG.
74 Flyboyaz : The announcement we got at work said a 767 from CLT to PHL and an A340 from PHL-PEK holding 269 pax....would that be a 340-200? or -300?
75 Post contains images DiscoverCSG : Unless one flies in the front (J, C, F), NO plane is comfortable for a 14-hour flight! In my experience, seat pitch, seat construction, seat width, t
76 Mu2 : LOL. US doesn't plan that far into the future. Kirby and Parker have tunnel vision and only look at one thing and not how it would effect future opti
77 Post contains links Flyboyaz : Guess I answered my own question. It's going to be a 340-300 with 42C 227Y. They have the schedules and everything on the webpage http://www.usairway
78 Post contains links Vega : Here is the actual DOT Application - about the most comprehensive by any airline: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf101/476696_web.pdf My only comment
79 Clipper136 : All answers to the many question are contained within the Application submitted by US. Depending on when the service will actually start, US will eith
80 Flighty : They will be flying the A350-800 on the routes by about 2014. So whatever they do 2009-2014 doesn't really matter that much. It's just temporary lift
81 Mu2 : I guess this answers our question of how US will get the A343 US Airways will have A340-300 aircraft available for service to Beijing on March 25, 200
82 CO787EWR : Read the bid so the A340-300 allows some cargo to be carried both ways so i guess the A345 would be over kill for some one like US[Edited 2007-07-18 0
83 Vega : What does that have to do with whether they should have selected the -500, instead of the -300? Five years is an eternity in the airline industry and
84 Post contains links Centrair : Cna someone explain the meaning of this part of the application? It was near the beginning. It is the "via Tokyo or another point in Japan" part that
85 Flighty : Well I guess the A340-500 is a more expensive jet... it burns more fuel... and US Airways decided it ain't worth bothering with the -500. That's prob
86 Centrair : In the application they state that they will lease A340-300 aircraft for use on this route which would be available before March of 2009 but have rig
87 LACA773 : As it is now, US drastically needs to upgrade their inflight product offerings and catering internationally if they are going to compete effectively.
88 Kappel : I thought the reason they are now looking at the a343 was because they were going after the AC a345's, but those are now going to JJ.
89 Post contains images Flyboyaz : We announced service upgrades to the long haul fleet and inflight service back in April. Should be completed in the fall. There is a press release on
90 Bobnwa : It is amazing that you have all this knowledge that US Airways am forward your message to US Airways does not have access to. I am forwarding your me
91 Flighty : They haven't made any mistakes, it's Vega who thinks they should buy the A345. I just pointed out that they will lease the A343 (which they said in t
92 Flyboyaz : They did state however if we did not get the China route, they would consider buying A340's anyhow to do different routings, including NRT (which is
93 Usairways85 : The A350 is years away. If US thinks that they can wait for the arrival of the 350 as a suitable aircraft for china or asia then they will likely hav
94 LACA773 : [quote=Flyboyaz,reply=89] We announced service upgrades to the long haul fleet and inflight service back in April. Should be completed in the fall. Th
95 Post contains links Flyboyaz : Sure thing...try this link: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....l-newsArticle&ID=991218&highlight=
96 Philadelphia1 : When did US Airways express interest in Delhi? Cool idea, but very off the charts
97 Flyboyaz : Scott Kirby mentioned it as a place we'd like to fly to. They mentioned India in general....would be pretty cool I guess. An A340 would do the route
98 Ca2ohHP : Anyone else notice the 767 seatmap on page 57? They're currently configured at 24C/176Y. I wasn't aware there were plans to reduce the Envoy class on
99 Flighty : Indeed, people say the 767 Enboy class is very very old. Since US is shining up their 767s in general, they are putting new Envoy seats in. What type
100 DTWAGENT : I have a question....Where is USAirways going to come up with an A340 to fly this route? And are they planning on having more then 2 birds on this fli
101 FLYGUY767 : Doesnt the list of connecting cities seem less than impressive? What is the use of showing CLT as an originating station, if their is both an equipmen
102 DTWAGENT : That is what I thought. My on concern is that PHL can't handle it international flights now on USAirways. How are they going to do this flight to PEK.
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 Airways To Remain For 2 Years posted Thu Jan 4 2001 06:44:52 by 767-332ER
US Airways Announces Intention To Apply For China posted Mon Feb 12 2007 15:23:14 by Positiverate
Delta To Apply For ATL-PVG Instead Of PEK In 2008 posted Fri Jan 19 2007 10:30:33 by Panamair
CPH News: Thai Wants 2nd Daily, US Airways To PHL posted Tue May 15 2007 09:02:47 by TR
A Dozen Reasons For US Airways To Pick Up 747SP's posted Tue Jun 27 2006 07:50:00 by Thegooddoctor
US Airways To Resume Hot Meals In First posted Wed Jun 22 2005 03:58:50 by Hawk44
US Airways Adds Flights For Formula 1 In YUL, IND posted Tue Apr 5 2005 20:54:02 by A330323X
US Airways To Use A-330 On PHL-SJU posted Fri Dec 10 2004 05:31:21 by Jcarv
US Airways To Begin PHL-BCN, PHL-VCE posted Wed Nov 17 2004 04:23:10 by N670UW
US Airways To PHL posted Thu Sep 9 2004 23:03:05 by CRJboy