Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Defers SFO-CAN For 1 Year  
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2003 posts, RR: 23
Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just received an email from UA Sales office announcing that they have just applied to USDOT to defer startup of SFO-CAN for 1 year.

fair use excerpt:

United applied to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to defer the start of nonstop flights between San Francisco and Guangzhou for one year. This is one of many difficult decisions that United must make in an environment when oil prices are at $100-plus per barrel, when at the time United originally applied for the route, the jet fuel price was around US$72 a barrel.


Despite whatever potential this route may have, it is obviously not the time to start a brand new longhaul route, which will no doubt take time to develop. I can't say I blame them for delaying.

[Edited 2008-04-11 14:26:52]


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5889 times:



Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
it is obviously not the time to start a brand new longhaul route

An interesting perspective considering that several other major U.S. airlines will be starting multiple "brand new longhaul route[s]" each in the next six weeks.

One has to wonder what better use United has for those two 777s.


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Good news for NW to continue being on the only US carrier in CAN.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineFlavio340 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

How are the loads and yields on NW NRT-CAN? I think it would be hard to fill a 777 from the states when NW only runs a 757-200 with 5th freedoms.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5837 times:



Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Despite whatever potential this route may have, it is obviously not the time to start a brand new longhaul route, which will no doubt take time to develop. I can't say I blame them for delaying.

It's only obvious if you agree with UA's decision.

It is probably very annoying to airlines that lost out to UA in the lottery for this destination, and will impact UA negatively in the future when pursuing new routes.

That is, of course, if it isn't just a matter of UA deferring any sort of changes and major additions to their route structure until the NW+DL, CO+UA thing sorts itself out.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7583 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5804 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 2):
Good news for NW to continue being on the only US carrier in CAN.

Good news for CZ, who continues to operate the only nonstop flight from CAN to the US through North Americas number 1 Trans-Pacific Gate way: LAX!!!!



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5794 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It is probably very annoying to airlines that lost out to UA in the lottery for this destination,

UA was the only applicant for the CAN route designation.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5781 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It is probably very annoying to airlines that lost out to UA in the lottery for this destination, and will impact UA negatively in the future when pursuing new routes.

No other airline applied to serve CAN and this particular frequency was specifically dedicated to CAN.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32737 posts, RR: 72
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5780 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It is probably very annoying to airlines that lost out to UA in the lottery for this destination, and will impact UA negatively in the future when pursuing new routes.

UA was uncontested, or this would not be happening, nor allowed, as the runner up would get route authority.



a.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5780 times:



Quoting A330323X (Reply 6):
UA was the only applicant for the CAN route designation.

But there were "X" number of China frequencies up for grabs, am I correct?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5780 times:

LOL...three of us saying the same thing at once.


Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5763 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
But there were "X" number of China frequencies up for grabs, am I correct?

Yes but this one had to be used for CAN.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5764 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
But there were "X" number of China frequencies up for grabs, am I correct?

That was for 2009, with 28 frequencies available.

In 2008, there were 7 frequencies available that were specifically designated for CAN, and UA was the lone applicant for them.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4898 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It is probably very annoying to airlines that lost out to UA in the lottery for this destination, and will impact UA negatively in the future when pursuing new routes

Actually, IIRC, wasn't the CAN allotment done as a separate "CAN-only" case? The 2008 allocation was for CAN service only and UA was the only who applied...


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5744 times:



Quoting PA110 (Thread starter):
Despite whatever potential this route may have, it is obviously not the time to start a brand new longhaul route, which will no doubt take time to develop. I can't say I blame them for delaying.

I'm thinking there is more going on behind the scenes than UA management will admit. That's just the investigator in me.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5688 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 14):
I'm thinking there is more going on behind the scenes than UA management will admit. That's just the investigator in me.

Its one of three things in my opinion:

UA ran the numbers and decided that they could not make a profit on this route this year, and decided to see if they could put it off till next year when possibly the market will be stronger.

UA found an as of yet unannounced route to deploy the aircraft on that will be more profitable the CAN.

UA realised that they are going to be short on aircraft this year while the cabin retrofit is taking place.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5526 times:

Hmm I wonder if NW will reconsider they are the only other carrier that could possibly apply.

It would be an added plus on merger announcement day.


User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3908 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

NWA already has the authority to serve CAN... and they do so from NRT. Why NRT? Because the 744 is too large for DTW-CAN and by routing via NRT, NWA can feed the CAN flight from all NRT gateways as well as within Asia. It's about time they upgauge this to a 332!!


AZJ


User currently offlineTN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5494 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):
An interesting perspective considering that several other major U.S. airlines will be starting multiple "brand new longhaul route[s]" each in the next six weeks.

It is odd, considering most carriers are considering international routes their salvation. Even though the Olympics are in PEK, I would have thought some residual traffic would have flown through CAN. I too wonder if there's not more behind this decision than oil prices (though that is a pretty legitimate excuse for all things airline related these days).


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5429 times:



Quoting TN757Flyer (Reply 18):
It is odd, considering most carriers are considering international routes their salvation. Even though the Olympics are in PEK, I would have thought some residual traffic would have flown through CAN.

I'm sure that it will for a few months but after the Olympics are over the traffic will drop back down to current levels. NW has been flying to CAN for years however only using a 757, event though the CAN region is one of the richest in China. Its quite possible that there just isnt enough demand to fill a 777 right now. CAN also competes to a point with HKG for traffic as well which is not an issue that PVG and PEK have.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineDaron4000 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5175 times:



Quoting TN757Flyer (Reply 18):
It is odd, considering most carriers are considering international routes their salvation. Even though the Olympics are in PEK, I would have thought some residual traffic would have flown through CAN. I too wonder if there's not more behind this decision than oil prices (though that is a pretty legitimate excuse for all things airline related these days).

But at the same time, look at DL dropping many new destinatins within a few years or changing their US origin- not all long haul adventures are a gold mine especially when you start 10 all at once. Given that is not what UA is doing but there is still the possibility that given other financial priorities, they don't want to waste valuble money that will be lost while CAN picks up momentum as a viable new route when it can be used for things like the cabin refit etc.


User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Quoting Daron4000 (Reply 20):
But at the same time, look at DL dropping many new destinatins within a few years or changing their US origin- not all long haul adventures are a gold mine especially when you start 10 all at once.

What are the "many" long-haul international destinations has Delta dropped "within a few years?" I can think of CDG-MAA, and some shifts from JFK to ATL or vise-versa for some Euro flights, but other than MAA a long-haul destination that they've closed the doors on entirely does not come to mind. There's been some stop-n-go on a few Carrib/Mexican routes but I'd hardly call those key international long-hauls.

Bottom line, CAN was a boutique opportunity that most carriers felt just couldn't be managed profitably with a nonstop from the USA. If anyone could made it work, UA stood the best chance, but they probably had their doubts even when the signed off the application paperwork. No harm no foul to hold off and hope for better days. This isn't at all unlike the hundreds and hundreds of route authorities that US carriers hold (especially inherited from the likes of PanAM and TWA) across the ponds that sit dormant and unsed, yet "theirs."

[Edited 2008-04-11 21:37:48]


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5133 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4637 times:



Quoting TN757Flyer (Reply 18):
I too wonder if there's not more behind this decision than oil prices (though that is a pretty legitimate excuse for all things airline related these days).

Well, then why do most European carriers still make huge profits? It must be something else.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4623 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 22):
Well, then why do most European carriers still make huge profits? It must be something else.

Outside of LH,BA and AF/KL which European carriers are making huge profits? Alitalia, Sabena, Swissair, Aer Lingus, Iberia, SAS, Finnair come to mind as carriers not making a huge profit.


User currently offlineTN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4578 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 22):
Well, then why do most European carriers still make huge profits? It must be something else.

Isn't this basically what I said? You might want to quantify "most". I dare say some, not most. But thats another thread.


25 Brissedk : Wauw, only 1 thing in that statement is correct! Alitalia is down the drain. Everything else is completely incorrect: Sabena and Swissair haven't exi
26 UAL777UK : Whilst dissapointing, in the current economic climate I guess its no surprise. I wonder where those 777's will be flying to in the meantime?
27 Bobnwa : The statement was they were making HUGE profits. I don't think they are.
28 FreequentFlier : C'mon guys, we've been through this. Oil is priced in dollars, as per OPEC's decision. The price of oil has gone from $72 to $110 in one year. Since
29 BrisseDK : Correct! And what is "HUGE profits"? It is 100% subjective, thus not something which can be "agreed upon". A "HUGE profit" to me, might be an abysmal
30 777fan : Why not? Plenty of carriers are adding international routes. Yes, and with UA's domestic consolidation, it's possible they'd use the "saved" a/c to s
31 PIAflyer : united made this descision beacuse the economy and route was not ready enough for their bussiness
32 ConcordeBoy : ...such as? ....give 'em a few years in OpenSkies, and let's see how they do now that their bread/butter routes can be attacked by carriers with pote
33 WorldTraveler : the route needs to be rebid. There are other carriers that could well be interested by waiting another year. Let's see what other carriers have to say
34 BrisseDK : To be fair, they did drop JFK-CPH and later on JFK-ARN (which was transferred from CPH). Adding to that, CPH seems to be the most successful of the r
35 United1 : I'm not so sure about that, while I have no issue with the route being re-bid, I don't think there are any other US carriers that would go for a US-C
36 Viscount724 : With fuel at current prices I think many carriers will be cutting back on new route launches, and even eliminating some current routes that may have
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...
UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th posted Tue Nov 6 2007 20:14:56 by FreequentFlier
UA Awarded SFO - Can posted Wed Sep 26 2007 05:22:24 by Flyiguy
Report: UA To Apply SFO-CAN posted Fri Mar 3 2006 06:58:18 by BigGSFO
UA To Suspend SFO-ICN For This Fall/winter posted Thu Jul 28 2005 10:09:43 by HeeseokKoo
SFO-NGO For UA. Is This A Good Idea? posted Thu Jun 3 2004 19:36:03 by A2
Any B 777s For UA Between SFO And JFK/EWR/LGA? posted Wed Mar 20 2002 10:13:59 by United Airline
Delta Joins UA+US In $25 For 2nd Bag posted Tue Mar 18 2008 22:41:05 by LAXintl
UA 930 SFO - LHR (diverted) posted Sun Feb 24 2008 22:52:55 by Kubik
How Does UA's PMD-SFO Do? posted Sat Feb 23 2008 08:15:54 by Zone1
UA 863 SFO-SYD Diverted To BNE 16/1/08 posted Wed Jan 16 2008 18:10:57 by BPS3458