Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Status Of US PHL-China?  
User currently offlineSQ25J From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

Hello All,

Can anyone advise staus of US Airways PHL-China, (I think PVG ), route. I imagine they will not go forward anytime soon, and could very well lose authority?

For starters-they dont have aircraft for nonstop flight-and with yesterdays announcement no to take delivery of 2 332's in '09......looks like the China flight has fallen through?

Anyone with info please advise

Thanks

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1440 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

This will never happen. I dont know why US even applied for it, and I have no clue why the DOT awarded it to them!!!!! WASTE!

User currently offlineSQ25J From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

OOer.....Thanks for reply. Take into consideration when they apllied over a year ago.....most airlines were starting to turn the corner financially.....since then the unexpected fuel cost increases have derailed most carriers plans. Even DL requested DOT for decrease in frequency due to operating cost and low load factor.

User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3022 times:



Quoting SQ25J (Thread starter):

Can anyone advise staus of US Airways PHL-China, (I think PVG

It was PEK. US has an application pending requesting a year delay. This was discussed in a couple of prior threads. US is not the only airline requesting a delay on new service.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24320 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

US asked for a 1 year delay on the start up, and is well discussed in this thread.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/3994015



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1440 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2946 times:



Quoting SQ25J (Reply 2):
Take into consideration when they apllied over a year ago.....most airlines were starting to turn the corner financially.....since then the unexpected fuel cost increases have derailed most carriers plans.

Honestly, did you really think US was going to be able to start a route of that magnitude? Even if oil was still at $90 per barrell, US would not be able to put it together!!!


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2927 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 5):
Even if oil was still at $90 per barrell, US would not be able to put it together!!!

 checkmark 

Fuel prices are just a very convenient excuse.



a.
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5953 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2925 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
Fuel prices are just a very convenient excuse.

Why have you always been negative on this route?

I just looked at the thread 2 minutes ago, and you HAD NOT posted. I said to myself, where's MAH? I look back a minute later, here you are!!! Why the negativity? Everyone else can fly from their big hubs to China,why not US?



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2900 times:



Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 7):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
Fuel prices are just a very convenient excuse.

Why have you always been negative on this route?

Am I supposed to be positive about every single route?

The route never made sense. It's long and thin, and, above that, US Airways was going to operate a dedicated sub-fleet of two A340s for one route. That's a recipe for disaster. Have they not learned that lesson from Air Canada, Singapore Air, and Thai's A340-500 subfleet fiascos?

Plus, even before today's fuel prices, earlier this year, US Airways was claiming that if Delta got gate space in the new international terminal, they might not start the route. It's was a clear scape-goat tactic - what airline would in their right mind give up a lucrative China route just because another airline is getting some gate space?



a.
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2882 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
That's a recipe for disaster. Have they not learned that lesson from Air Canada, Singapore Air, and Thai's A340-500 subfleet fiascos?

They may have decided to get rid of the A340-500, but the situations were hardly fiascos. A bit of an exaggeration.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2859 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 9):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
That's a recipe for disaster. Have they not learned that lesson from Air Canada, Singapore Air, and Thai's A340-500 subfleet fiascos?

They may have decided to get rid of the A340-500, but the situations were hardly fiascos. A bit of an exaggeration.

Keeping a fleet of planes for less than three years like Thai and Air Canada? I would call that a "fiasco," but to each his own.



a.
User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1440 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2851 times:



Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 7):
Everyone else can fly from their big hubs to China,why not US?

Thats exacly why, because its US. They dont have the planes, and they dont have the infrastructure to be able to support such a route. Its kind of like going from 2nd grade to 8th grade. You must develop your international presernce in steps...


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2846 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 11):

Thats exacly why, because its US. They dont have the planes, and they dont have the infrastructure to be able to support such a route. Its kind of like going from 2nd grade to 8th grade. You must develop your international presernce in steps...

Well said and very true.



a.
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5953 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2831 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 11):
You must develop your international presernce in steps...

Such as?

And I'n not being a smart-ass either. I'm really curious and want to know.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineLambert747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Quoting OOer (Reply 11):
Thats exacly why, because its US. They dont have the planes, and they dont have the infrastructure to be able to support such a route. Its kind of like going from 2nd grade to 8th grade. You must develop your international presernce in steps...

Exactly!

The shareholders meeting the other goes to show that US Airways has a great many issues to resolve before moving forward with a route to a market that is over 7000 miles away. Flying a route like PHL-PEK is not near as easy as a route like PHL-MXP. There are so many key factors involved.

First for example when US Airways started MXP that the aircraft in the fleet, they had a presence in the market, and they had the connections to make it work. China is a whole other ballgame. US Airways applied for China with a haphazard application that was using a 767-200 that started in Charlotte that would take passengers to Philadelphia, at that point the flights would change aircraft to either a A340-300 or a A330-200. I believe it was a A340 that was mentioned for the route.

I am still more than amazed that the DOT allotted the frequencies to an airline without an aircraft to fly the route. I doubt very seriously that a year from now US Airways will have the equipment, in-flight products, or labour issues solved in order to make this flight viable for the long term. I have my doubts as well that US Airways is going to survive going from $36.00 stock to a $2.86 stock value.

[Edited 2008-06-14 14:54:38]

User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2770 times:



Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 14):
First for example when US Airways started MXP that the aircraft in the fleet, they had a presence in the market, and they had the connections to make it work. China is a whole other ballgame.

So where you propose US start in regards to Pacific service? (I believe the longest current route for US is ATH-PHL 11:30hrs)


User currently offlineLambert747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2758 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
So where you propose US start in regards to Pacific service? (I believe the longest current route for US is ATH-PHL 11:30hrs)

I am not proposing a move, what I am proposing is a realignment of priorities at US Airways. I am still amused by the shareholders meeting this past week. The airline is in a mess with no clear way out. I cannot say it enough, as the stock price of US Airways speaks more than volumes of the direction the airline is going in.

The Philadelphia to Peking route would be more than viable if US Airways was not in the shape it is in today. The route took a lot of planning, yet the airline failed a key part of that - The aircraft to fly the route. The are other things that US Airways needs to work on in house before they look at purchasing a subfleet to serve a single route.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5225 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2758 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
So where you propose US start in regards to Pacific service?

They should start where pretty much every other US airline has started, by serving NRT. NRT is by the largest US-Asia O/D market and is a good first step in order for US to test the waters vis-a-vis transpacific service. Applying for a China route when the combined carriers only experience in Asia was that of failure, was foolish at best.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineCALRAMPER From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2754 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
The route never made sense. It's long and thin, and, above that, US Airways was going to operate a dedicated sub-fleet of two A340s for one route. That's a recipe for disaster. Have they not learned that lesson from Air Canada, Singapore Air, and Thai's A340-500 subfleet fiascos?

Ak Aa about operating a small subfleet of aircraft for just a couple of routes ( A-300), it tends to equal a huge mess

Quoting OOer (Reply 11):
Thats exacly why, because its US. They dont have the planes, and they dont have the infrastructure to be able to support such a route. Its kind of like going from 2nd grade to 8th grade. You must develop your international presernce in steps...

Amen, They should never have applied for the route in the first place since thaey nknew that they did not have the planes or any plan for getting them. Just my  twocents 



ETOPS-Engines Turn or People Swim
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32176 posts, RR: 72
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting CALRAMPER (Reply 18):
Ak Aa about operating a small subfleet of aircraft for just a couple of routes ( A-300), it tends to equal a huge mess

A fleet of 34 A300s is not a "small subfleet." The A300 is a mess because of reliability issues, not because the size of the fleet which is not small and serves over 25 different routes.

[Edited 2008-06-14 16:15:34]


a.
User currently offlineLambert747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2738 times:



Quoting CALRAMPER (Reply 18):
Ak Aa about operating a small subfleet of aircraft for just a couple of routes ( A-300), it tends to equal a huge mess

Have you seen the history of the American Airlines A300 program?

Have you seen the avergae stage lengths on the American Airlines A300 fleet?

34 ships is hardly a subfleet!


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2679 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 17):
They should start where pretty much every other US airline has started, by serving NRT.

One of the problems in the United States, all the airlines seem to follow the same path. Isn't there enough airlines serving NRT from the states now?

Quoting Lambert747 (Reply 14):
I have my doubts as well that US Airways is going to survive going from $36.00 stock to a $2.86 stock value.

I think you can say this about every carrier..but Wall Street did like the US Airways moved, stock up 6% on Friday, although 6% of nothing is still nothing.


User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1440 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2558 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 21):
I think you can say this about every carrier..but Wall Street did like the US Airways moved, stock up 6% on Friday, although 6% of nothing is still nothing.

US Airways current market cap....just over $200 million!!! B6 market cap...over $800 million...

WOW!


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2535 times:



Quoting SQ25J (Reply 2):
. Even DL requested DOT for decrease in frequency due to operating cost and low load factor.

DL asked due to cost not low load factor. But lets not start that fight.........again.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
So where you propose US start in regards to Pacific service? (I believe the longest current route for US is ATH-PHL 11:30hrs)

NRT. NRT is one of if not the easiest Asian city to servie. If you can't make money in NRT then just stay out of Asia. Plus NRT is a *A hub which makes it even easier.

Quoting CALRAMPER (Reply 18):


Ak Aa about operating a small subfleet of aircraft for just a couple of routes ( A-300), it tends to equal a huge mess

34 is not a sub-fleet. 2 A343 would be a sub fleet. Hell if 34 was a sub-fleet the largest A330 fleet in the world would be a sub fleet.  Silly



yep.
User currently offlineKPHXFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 413 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2467 times:



Quoting OOer (Reply 22):
US Airways current market cap....just over $200 million!!! B6 market cap...over $800 million...

I'm not picking on anybody but what's the big deal with market cap? Its the number of outstanding shares x the price of the shares. I notice a good number of people comment on one companies Market Cap vs. another but I don't understand its usage in this context. How does this relate to the health of the company in question?

In a general sense, I get it...higher stock price, perception is company's doing OK...stock's in the crapper, it's not so good...I get that...but when all the airlines stocks tend to be down, is it truly a reflection of the airline or the market? Its not like this is money the airline can use, right?

Didn't Enron have a big market cap before the walls caved in?


25 ScottB : Market cap reflects what investors think the total overall value of a company is. As a example, even though Boeing's share price is two-and-a-half ti
26 KPHXFlyer : I guess to me it just doesn't seem to be any more a valuable reflection of a company's worth than the stock price. To some extent, it just means how
27 DeltaL1011man : Other airlines are around 6 bucks. US is around 2 bucks.
28 Bobnwa : The value of stocks for a particular company are price because of how well the company is perceived to be doing and how many stock certificates are i
29 Post contains images KPHXFlyer : Again, I'm not picking on anybody and just trying to understand...Most airlines are at 6, US is at 2 and WN (LUV) is at 14 with a market cap of 10.6B
30 Silentbob : Market cap is irrelevant when talking about the health and well-being of a company. Perfect example of my last answer Absolutely nothing. Most stock
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...
The Current Status Of US Carriers posted Sun Nov 25 2001 01:13:39 by Koopas
Status Of The DL US Long Haul Product? posted Sat Dec 8 2007 19:53:49 by Jerseyguy
US Applying For PHL-China Route posted Thu Mar 1 2007 15:36:20 by HangarRat
US Applying For PHL-China Route posted Thu Mar 1 2007 15:30:13 by HangarRat
Status Of New US Routes? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 08:29:02 by Mah584jr
Status Of UPS DC-8 @ PHL posted Sat Feb 25 2006 02:20:06 by RampRat74
Full List Of US Spring Schedules-CLT/PHL Only posted Mon Oct 18 2004 10:50:36 by SHUPirate1
Status Of The US Company Store? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 00:42:02 by Aa757first
China Airlines Posts 2002 Profit Of US$89.544 Mil posted Mon Apr 21 2003 16:42:55 by Singapore_Air
Current Status Of BA's 4 Class Service To The US posted Tue Mar 19 2002 18:21:25 by AT