DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9027 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 11287 times:
ORD will face the least amount of cuts - the amount of flights into ORD are limited, so AA/UA don't want to give up any of these slots just for a LCC to eat them up. I know when UA announced their latest cuts, SFO, IAD, LAX and DEN all had some sort of reduction - but ORD stayed the same.
Ripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1326 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 10961 times:
ORD is not safe from cutting because of the slots I think but prettty soon slots will be gone. It's all about gate space at ORD for a LCC to come in thats all and if UA and AA cut flights and some LCC wants to pick up what they just cut or add I bet UA or AA wont let them use any of their gates even if they are not in use. I know AA has L1 which is closed and has been for a while and L6 which will run on various times but closed most of the time. So right now even before the cuts AA has empty gate space to spare. After the cuts they will have even more and they will not sub lease them out.
TUSAA From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 10790 times:
AA will be cutting some routes and reducing frequencies on others. AA's plan for ORD will be to focus on the higher yield business routes, or non biz routes with higher yields than most. One of AA's plans is to run ORD-LGA every thirty minutes, with AA mainline doing the peak runs and Eagle doing the low demand periods. This may also be utilized in a couple of other markets out of ORD sometime down the road. Not having a first class on the RJ's may have a impact on whether it's successful or not. Business folks like their upgrades.
if AA or UA were to cut any flights and there is still a slot program then what ever the 2 carriers give up will be taken by some else quicker than you can say hahaha..at ord its all about the slots and ego
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7808 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (7 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 9475 times:
Quoting United787 (Reply 9): Does anyone think that the price of fuel will force airlines to fly less frequencies with bigger planes?
ORD-MAN showing as 5 weekly down from daily. However, whether is down to fuel prices or BA starting to exert pressure on AA to stop flying ex-MAN is open to debate (note, BA's "influence" has seen a fair number of airlines cease flying ex-MAN)
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 9765 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8704 times:
Quoting David_itl (Reply 11): ORD-MAN showing as 5 weekly down from daily. However, whether is down to fuel prices or BA starting to exert pressure on AA to stop flying ex-MAN is open to debate (note, BA's "influence" has seen a fair number of airlines cease flying ex-MAN)
AA has been operating ORD to Manchester for 23 years, why would hey kill it now ? It makes money, if it didn't AA would have killed it long ago. Why would BA want AA to kill it? BA doesn't really operate long haul Manchester flights but asking AA to kill the flight would make no sense.
RampGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8506 times:
Getting off topic, but quite frankly I wish Atlanta would see some cuts because DL keeps adding flights and adding flights that the congestion will only get worse. DL thinks by having the most flights in one city they are impressing people, but only driving them to go to another airport that is less congested.
DTWAGENT From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7943 times:
I know with my clients. Flying into MAN non-stop from ORD is a good thing. Almost everyone of them do not want to change planes in LHR or any orher city for that matter. I think everyone is right. ORD is not going to see that many flight cuts. Same goes with DTW. NWA is not going to cut off what money they are making by giving up slots and routes in DTW. So I would expect UA and AA to do the same thing.
They can cut other city pairs. Question here. Does anyone know what is going to happen to CVG and MEM once the merger goes thru? I can't see them keeping them as a major hub when you have DTW and ATL so close together.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24550 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7678 times:
Quoting Ripcordd (Reply 6): I know AA has L1 which is closed and has been for a while and L6 which will run on various times but closed most of the time. So right now even before the cuts AA has empty gate space to spare.
Of course, those gates are leased by DL and subleased to AA. AA's utilization on H and K is somewhat better than on L, though it's still not uncommon to see a 752 or 763 sitting on a gate for 3 or 4 hours, and I'm not sure AA uses L2 anymore even though AS only uses it a few times a day.
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12): I can see ORD-SLC/RNO/PDX going away with reductions to SEA, LAX, SFO....
Bringing some 738s up to ORD (either as a result of M80 retirements or as a result of AA relaxing its draconian fleet type restrictions at hubs) would likely help some of the marginal west coast routes.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5873 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7566 times:
Quoting Ripcordd (Reply 6): I know AA has L1 which is closed and has been for a while
L1 isn't closed. My wife frequently takes early flights (before 7:30 am) flights out of ORD and AA, and there is always an AA MD-80 parked at L1, along with a DL MD-90 at L3, a DL Connection RJ at L5, a DL MD-88 at L7, and an NK Airbus at L9.
And from looking at OHare.com, it appears that AA uses both L2A and L2B, although L2B is the AS gate, so it doesn't get as many AA flights.
My guess is that AA won't cut the number of operations at ORD, but there will be routes dropped and frequency reductions. But, some DFW flights will be moved to ORD to fill in the slots.
For instance, ORD-LAS currently has 5 non-stops, while DFW-LAS has 10 non-stops. There are a number of cities that have many more flights from DFW than ORD. Considering the size of Chicagoland versus the Metroplex, as well as the amount of traffic that connects through ORD and DFW, it doesn't make sense for the disparity, so shifting flights from DFW to ORD, to fill in the schedule cuts at ORD makes sens.
Remember that the FAA hasn't made a final decision on the arrival rate, once the third east-west runway opens in November. The FAA was leaning towards maintaining the current arrival rate, but it got flack from the airlines, the City of Chicago, Illinois members of Congress, and various passenger groups.
So, the arrival rate will increase, but the FAA won't allow unlimited operations until the 4th east-west runway opens, and there is no schduled date, since the City needs to buy land for the 4th runway, and the purchases are tied up in court.
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 8366 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7549 times:
Quoting Ckfred (Reply 22): My guess is that AA won't cut the number of operations at ORD, but there will be routes dropped and frequency reductions. But, some DFW flights will be moved to ORD to fill in the slots.
I realize that AA needs to hold on to the slots, I just cant see ORD seeing an increase in domestic traffic. If they do, I doubt it will be in cities to the West. If anything, look for ORD to see a reduction in frequency to cities in the West.
Quoting Ckfred (Reply 22): Considering the size of Chicagoland versus the Metroplex, as well as the amount of traffic that connects through ORD and DFW, it doesn't make sense for the disparity, so shifting flights from DFW to ORD, to fill in the schedule cuts at ORD makes sens.
Given that UA has the biggest piece of ORD, the size of DFW vs. ORD isnt really relevant anymore. UA has a huge number of flights at ORD and if you combine the number of AA and UA (not to mention WN at MDW) flights to most destinations, you would come up with more than AA has at DFW.
I'm actually not convinced of that. My guess (and it's not a real good one since we're talking about the FAA) is that they'll make 10 arrivals per hour available when the new runway opens. I cannot envision AA, UA B6, and VX (the latter two being the carriers who HAVE stated that they wish to expand ORD, though I'm skeptical about B6) beginning 100 new daily flights combined.
I envision it being something like the new US-Argentina bilateral...restricted on paper but completely open from a practical perspective.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
: What dont people get it's not about slots it's all about GATE SPACE UA and AA could cancel all their flights out of ORD and they wouldn't have to give
: IIRC the leases do have a use requirement, but it's fairly low. Airportplan can probably tell us for sure.
: I took my wife to ORD this morning for a flight to BOS, and an AA MD-80 was in the process of being unhooked from a tug at L1. I've taken my wife to
: If AA is trying to reduce domestic capacity because its loseing money, what does shifting flight to ORD accomplish? I would look for a decrease in ca
: You're not getting my point. First, you cut flights at ORD. Then, you shift flights from DFW, as well as cut flights at DFW. On paper, it appears tha
: First off Im going to maintain that I dont think ORD will be getting any thing more to the West, I think ORD will recieve cuts for destinations to th
: I thought the MKE-ORD was getting a cut from UA. I know DEN-MKE is going down to two flights a day. Regards, Mark
: No, they do, but IIRC it's something like 3 or 4 flights a day, so they could cut plenty and still not lose gates. FWIW, that means that they'd keep
: But look at it this way. If AA flies 5 R/Ts between ORD and LAS and 10 R/Ts between DFW and LAS, then wouldn't it make more sense to fly 6 R/Ts from
: They did away with ORD-YVR and ORD-YYC. They were also about to do away with ORD-PDX. What makes SLC special? If you wifes least favorite airport is
: No AA hub is going to benefit from any other AA hubs domestic cuts, with the possible exception of MIA benefiting from the transfer of more Trans Sta
: Haven't you argued elsewhere that the addition of 6 seats to many MIA routes is beneficial?
: Look, if ORD had no operations caps imposed by the FAA, then AA would simply cut flying at ORD as needed. End of story. But, with the operations caps
: Were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I really dont think so.
: LAXdude1023: Do you remember how hard AA and UA fought to keep B6 out of ORD? Then to add insult to injury, AA started flying ORD-JFK, first with Eagl
: But that doesnt mean they have to add capacity to keep LCC's out of ORD, they dont. All they have to is meet the minimum. It doesnt make sense to add
: Ripcordd is right. If AA and UA cancelled all of their flights today, and all flight caps at the airport were removed, only a few dozens flights coul
: When did the get rid of ORD-YVR. I flying ORD-YVR on the 10th with UA.
: Ok UA and AA fought B6 for one reason they just reduced flying into ORD to ease congestion to let a new carrier open up new routes into ORD. If this w
: Its been gone for quite a while. All AA's YYC and YVR routes are through DFW.
: ...and there's no rule that says that anyone must sublease to anyone else. DL subleases to AA because it's convenient for both. The calculus is marke
: My mistake, I thought you were talking about UA flying to YVR from ORD.
: Also, for winter travel especially, a lot of flyers prefer to travel as far (and as much to the) south as possible; when I was selling tickets from S
: you mean you're jealous that DL makes ATL work and other carriers don't make other hubs work. ATL has fairly high OT rankings since the 5th runway op
: Yes, it is. I was just talking about additional flights, not flights to replace current MQ flying, which is all that is happening. I think more AX fl
: But if MIA is more profitable than STL (and it seemingly is), then it seems like AA would be wise to move AX from STL to MIA even beyond what MQ has
: Today, almost any obligated domestic RJ flying contract can be characterized as a burden. Though yes, it does make sense to move more STL RJ flying t
: Ok well a list cam out with the reductions to AA schedule at ORD... They are losing 12 flights HNL/EZE gone 1 daily reduction to STL/DFW/MSP/DEN/SJU a
: Ill bet UA ends up pulling more out of ORD than AA does. AA is grounding only 45 planes 70 total. UA is grounding 100, and they start from a smaller