Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New China Routes  
User currently offlineSFOHORIZON From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 92 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

As I understand it, the US DOT, under the framework agreement hammered out with China, will award more China route authorities in 2010. Specifically, three in 2010, two in 2011 and two in 2012.

As we all know, many of the awardees have petitioned the US DOT to delay/postpone their first flights. Traffic to-from China has dropped precipitously with the onset of the global financialapocalypse.

Where does this leave the DOT?
I assume that they go forward with the bidding process for 2010 in 2009, but the question is, who will bid, and more importantly, of those who bid, who will win.
United is a dominant player.
Delta is now a dominant player.
Northwest does not exist.
Continental and American are still small players.
USAir, I don't even think they're a player yet, but they do have a postponed authority I believe.

Any thoughts?

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5615 times:



Quoting SFOHORIZON (Thread starter):

Not likely we will see anyone bid intill the economy gets better
IMHO we will see
CO:
IAH-PEK
IAH-PVG
DL
ATL-PEK
DTW-PEK
LAX-China
AA
DFW-Chine
UA
LAX-China
IAD-PVG (IMHO they should have gone for this one over LAX-PVG the last time)
US
PHL-PVG

First thing that will have to happen though is airlines who have rights but don't use them (AA,DL,UA and US) will have to put them to full use before we see them get anymore rights.
Right now China isn't the best market to fly to. I Believe at DL they will have 4-6 months before they have to make both ATL and DTW-PVG 7x weekly.



yep.
User currently offlineAtlwest1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1046 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

I think I see Continental bidding, maybe something from its large Houston hub. Delta might try to get a route to Guangzhou(hub of its Skyteam partner China Southern) and route pax there to better utilize the large China southern network. Hopefully though the traffic will rebound in the medium-term. That China market has alot of potential.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co. or Airt
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5582 times:



Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 2):

I think I see Continental bidding, maybe something from its large Houston hub. Delta might try to get a route to Guangzhou(hub of its Skyteam partner China Southern) and route pax there to better utilize the large China southern network. Hopefully though the traffic will rebound in the medium-term. That China market has alot of potential.

Not likely just because they only place they could make it work from is LAX.......which CZ has a daily 777 to.



yep.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

there is NO US carrier that is using all of the route authorities they have been awarded. It is not specific to any carrier - it is all of them. the fact that EVERY carrier is cutting back makes it possible for ANY carrier to cut back... there is no one standing in line to take the frequencies or argue that any one carrier should be flying... because they all are in the same boat.

And the chances are quite strong that when the recovery begins everyone will start moving.

The difference is that carriers like CO, DL, and UA which are operating frequencies partially will be further ahead than carriers like AA and US which have completely deferred awards. not only will those carriers have a bigger hill to climb but competitors can easily argue that the carriers who have deferred their routes have alot more work to do than those who are partially operating routes.

CO may want to add some IAH routes but if they grow closer to UA, it will be hard to argue that they are short of routes - and it might be difficult to make the 8 combined routes CO and UA currently have work. DL still has SEA-PVG to start in addition to bringing the 2 PVG routes up to full annual operations so they are probably not immediately in need of capacity but LAX and filling out other hubs (which might include JFK) are probably on the to do list. AA and UA will probably bid but with one unused PEK route and the next best route being DFW-PVG, there might not be too many choices unless AA wants to start LAX-China service - and you can bet DL will challenge them for that. UA will certainly try for more but they are pretty close to being tapped out on their current network .

Whether new routes are awarded or not depends on the attitude carriers have towards acquiring new rights. I expect you will see CO and DL bid for and win new service and start them even if they have to backtrack and reduce frequencies at some point in the future. And they will spin the game well as the route application process begins saying that they will operate their full frequencies in 2010 in order to gain more.


remember also that there are cities outside of PEK/PVG/and CAN which have no US carrier service and which US carriers could start TOMORROW.
nonetheless, the chances are good that the supply of routes will be sufficient for the demand for several years.


User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

The DOT should exclude every carrier with unused frequencies from the bidding process for new frequencies.
There might airlines out there that are interested in new frequencies, they should be able to get new frequencies, but only if they fly them to their full extend.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5361 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
(which might include JFK) are probably on the to do list

They have already bid for JFK and lost. I think DL will wait on DTW,LAX,ATL to get the China flights before they go to JFK. Best chance JFK has is HKG.  Wink

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
SEA-PVG

SEA-PEK
also DTW-PvG starts soon at 4x weekly



yep.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7326 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5137 times:



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 5):
The DOT should exclude every carrier with unused frequencies from the bidding process for new frequencies.

That would be all of them except CO.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
there is NO US carrier that is using all of the route authorities they have been awarded. It is not specific to any carrier - it is all of them. the fact that EVERY carrier is cutting back makes it possible for ANY carrier to cut back... there is no one standing in line to take the frequencies or argue that any one carrier should be flying... because they all are in the same boat.

A very accurate assesment. The Chinese economy is in the dumps and traffic has fallen off a cliff. I dont think theres going to be any carriers fighting hard for routes to China this time around.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
CO may want to add some IAH routes but if they grow closer to UA, it will be hard to argue that they are short of routes - and it might be difficult to make the 8 combined routes CO and UA currently have work. DL still has SEA-PVG to start in addition to bringing the 2 PVG routes up to full annual operations so they are probably not immediately in need of capacity but LAX and filling out other hubs (which might include JFK) are probably on the to do list. AA and UA will probably bid but with one unused PEK route and the next best route being DFW-PVG, there might not be too many choices unless AA wants to start LAX-China service - and you can bet DL will challenge them for that. UA will certainly try for more but they are pretty close to being tapped out on their current network .

Texas-China (IAH-PVG/PEK and DFW-PVG) would work very well in a good economy. In a s**t economy like we have now, they would preform poorly like most USA-China flights are currently doing.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5063 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 7):
Quoting JoFMO (Reply 5):
The DOT should exclude every carrier with unused frequencies from the bidding process for new frequencies.

That would be all of them except CO.

Than only CO has a case in asking for additional frequencies.

If airlines like DL or AA think they could perform another route but just feel the ones they currently have don't add up, than they should give back the rights they can't use properly. They would then be free to apply for a different route.

UA is a little bit of a different case since they only don't fly their route SFO-CAN which falls into a different category than routes to PEK and PVG. So they should be allowed to apply for any PEK and PVG route they like, but not for another CAN route. And if anyone asks for the idle CAN route they should immediately have to give it up!


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4954 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 7):
That would be all of them except CO.

CO has applied to reduce both of its China routes for less than daily.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
there is NO US carrier that is using all of the route authorities they have been awarded



User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7326 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4674 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
CO has applied to reduce both of its China routes for less than daily.

Did they reduce the frequencies though? As of April both China flights are being operated daily.

Quoting JoFMO (Reply 8):
If airlines like DL or AA think they could perform another route but just feel the ones they currently have don't add up, than they should give back the rights they can't use properly.

The reason they have no problem canceling flights because they no that no other airline will apply for the unused frequencies. And none will. If USA-China was open skies you can bet under the current economic conditions:

DL would can ATL-PVG
DL wouldnt bother with DTW-PVG
AA would probably operate ORD-PVG less than daily
UA would can IAD-PEK

Under good economic condiditons these flights could operate and not bleed as much money and thats why they dont want to let go of the flights completely. If they cancel the flights, they run the risk of losing them for good. And they dont want that.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4638 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10):
Did they reduce the frequencies though? As of April both China flights are being operated daily.

I don't believe CO has started their EWR-PVG service so they have just one flight per day to China anyway. They applied for and rec'd the authority to operate both of their flights on a reduced schedule (less than daily) for at least part of the year.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10):
Under good economic condiditons these flights could operate and not bleed as much money and thats why they dont want to let go of the flights completely. If they cancel the flights, they run the risk of losing them for good. And they dont want that.

that may be true but there is a critical mass that any airline must have in order to serve a partitcular market - and China service is still operated by large aircraft (almost all 777 or larger) because it is so difficult to get into the market. but smaller aircraft like the 787 or even the 332/767 can do the job well, esp. from certain parts of the US. For now, UA is still operating at least double daily service to 2 cities while NW/DL after this summer will operate 2 nonstop routes from the US to PVG plus the 2 NRT-China routes. for UA and DL, that may be more than what is needed... but no carrier is going to pull down their frequencies so low that they do not have a viable schedule ... and because some carriers like AA and CO do not operate even daily service to PVG and PEK yet, they can't pull down too much, which means DL and UA aren't going to pull down such that they don't maintain the schedule advantage they enjoy over AA and CO.

China will rebound and US carriers WILL add new routes although it might take time based on the likely slow return of American consumer spending.... but as the Chinese economy comes back, US carriers will add more service. In the next downturn which will probably happen after the next round of new routes are started, most carriers will probably have close to what they could possibly have to China during the best of times so cutting back in the next downturn will be much less of an issue. And by that point, China might find that Open Skies with the US offers them more opportunities with few additional routes by US carriers.


User currently offlineLuckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4594 times:



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 8):
Than only CO has a case in asking for additional frequencies

Many of the frequencies currently being operated are airport-specific aren't they? Thus if many of the airlines desired to operate to different airports, they would be required to apply for the rights to do so.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16974 posts, RR: 48
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4538 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 6):
also DTW-PvG starts soon at 4x weekly

Delayed to June 2009.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10):
DL would can ATL-PVG
DL wouldnt bother with DTW-PVG
AA would probably operate ORD-PVG less than daily
UA would can IAD-PEK

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark  ...Except for maybe AA since they have an aversion to less-than-daily flights that I don't understand.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 11):
They applied for and rec'd the authority to operate both of their flights on a reduced schedule (less than daily) for at least part of the year.

They remain both daily through open currently. DL's ATLPVG however is cut to 4x weekly through open, even less than the 5 weekly they applied for if I recall correctly.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16974 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4503 times:



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 8):
And if anyone asks for the idle CAN route they should immediately have to give it up!

Just forget about CAN for a few years. NW couldn't make it work to NRT, UA probably can't make it work TPAC either. It's a bit like the Chinese KIX but much poorer. Unless you're a carrier that can make money on the flow to Africa or South America, you aren't going to make CAN in the medium term.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32211 posts, RR: 72
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4474 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 10):
DL would can ATL-PVG
DL wouldnt bother with DTW-PVG
AA would probably operate ORD-PVG less than daily
UA would can IAD-PEK

checkmark checkmark checkmark ...Except for maybe AA since they have an aversion to less-than-daily flights that I don't understand.

 checkmark 

AA hates less than daily, which is one reason, for example, they avoid flying much Caribbean from O'Hare and smaller islands from Miami. And many times, less-than-daily services (including four of the five less-than-daily routes from MIA - BDA, LRM, GND, EGE) have some sort of subsidy/travel bank.



a.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

let's see now... DL is willing to start less than daily PVG flights from 2 hubs so they will have a total of 8 weekly operations nonstop from the US to PVG but AA doesn't want to do less than daily to PEK so they have no new flights to China at all.

so tell me again why some carriers are growing....

and whether CO has loaded their schedule changes or not, you can pretty well count on that they will be operating less than daily since they have approval to do so - unless the economy remarkably improves such that even post-summer traffic looks strong - at which point there is nothing stopping any of the other carriers such as UA or DL/NW from increasing frequencies as well, although the chance of AA or US starting new services after the summer is next to nil.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16974 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4404 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16):
whether CO has loaded their schedule changes or not, you can pretty well count on that they will be operating less than daily since they have approval to do so

The NYCPVG market size is about 5 times bigger than ATLPVG or DTWPVG, in good times and in bad.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7326 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4305 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16):
let's see now... DL is willing to start less than daily PVG flights from 2 hubs so they will have a total of 8 weekly operations nonstop from the US to PVG

They doubt the want to. Theyve applied to extend ATL-PVG's reductions well into 2010, but were denied.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2633 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

I would hope DL would apply for MSP-PVG or PEK. NW was interested in starting MSP-PVG with the 787 (but that was before the economy went down and 787 deliveries were delayed). Hopefully DL will be interested in starting MSP-PVG.


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5225 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4235 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13):
DL's ATLPVG however is cut to 4x weekly through open, even less than the 5 weekly they applied for if I recall correctly.

I was under the impression that DL reapplied in order to further reduce the frequencies.

On a somewhat related note, am I correct in assuming that the China awards are route specific meaning that, for instance, DL must use their authority to fly ATL-PVG and must reapply if they want to move the fly to, say, LAX or JFK?



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32211 posts, RR: 72
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4226 times:



Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 19):
I would hope DL would apply for MSP-PVG or PEK. NW was interested in starting MSP-PVG with the 787 (but that was before the economy went down and 787 deliveries were delayed). Hopefully DL will be interested in starting MSP-PVG.

I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one.

With NW now Delta, there is absolutely no purpose for those flights when DL can serve China from SEA, DTW, ATL and JFK.



a.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4226 times:



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17):
The NYCPVG market size is about 5 times bigger than ATLPVG or DTWPVG, in good times and in bad.



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 18):
They doubt the want to. Theyve applied to extend ATL-PVG's reductions well into 2010, but were denied.

I look for the DOT filings and didn't see the extension request but it could have slipped by....

of course not every aspect of the DL/NW merger could be coordinated or thought through but I'm sure DL would far rather have had one PEK route and one PVG route to start instead of 2 PVG routes. Since DL and NW did not have ATI, they couldn't have discussed coordinating their route applications but going from 1 to 3 PVG routes in 1 year is more than anyone can digest.

nonetheles, the point still stands that DL has been able to grow its int'l network by being willing to operate less than daily and seasonal services in many markets. Some people have looked for every opportunity to criticize every cutback but the reality is that the strategy has proven very effective in allowing DL to add dozens of new cities around the world, almost none of which were started as daily year round service.

It is time for all airline executives to consider that the opportunities for expansion that will come along in the future will not be what they were in the past. I would far rather see the current AA and US routes be started as less than daily for a year or two than sit unused. At the same time, I would rather see those new frequencies that come available be started by any carrier at 3-4 days/week than to wait until th market can support daily ops. In longhaul markets to/from developing countries, there might not be very many markets that can support daily year round service.... and the developing countries are where the growth will come from in the coming years. I would far rather see US carriers tap into that growth than to allow foreign carriers to get it all because US carriers won't be flexible in their schedules.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3852 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 21):
With NW now Delta, there is absolutely no purpose for those flights when DL can serve China from SEA, DTW, ATL and JFK.

and LA

Quoting OA412 (Reply 20):
On a somewhat related note, am I correct in assuming that the China awards are route specific meaning that, for instance, DL must use their authority to fly ATL-PVG and must reapply if they want to move the fly to, say, LAX or JFK?

yes and most of the time the other airlines will ask that they DOT put it up for re-bid. (most of the time)
But right now if DL wanted to move the flight they more than likely could with out anyone saying anything.



yep.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32211 posts, RR: 72
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3844 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 23):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 21):
With NW now Delta, there is absolutely no purpose for those flights when DL can serve China from SEA, DTW, ATL and JFK.

and LA

Two other carriers - UA and AA - are likely going to show interest in flying LA-China when the market picks up again. Most people think that AA will go for DFW-China in the future, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon. I expect AA to go for LAX-PVG or LAX-PEK, and given their current stronger position than Delta in SoCal and United's current plethora of China frequencies, I also firmly believe they have the absolute best shot of getting an LA-China award over any other U.S. airline.



a.
25 DeltaL1011man : In threoy Delta doesn't need to ask for the rights. Its not likely UA will be gatting much more anytime soon. The LA market will be able to have more
26 MAH4546 : That's true, but I don't see them discontinuing their NRT-PVG/PEK flights any time soon. That market is significantly easier to make more money in. 2
27 DeltaL1011man : right now no. But If it's one of the deals where they feel they need to get into the market before AA (and AA shows they will go for LA vs. DFW) then
28 MaverickM11 : DTW and more specifically ATL just aren't good hubs for China flights right now. The market is too small and the connecting opportunities aren't that
29 WorldTraveler : NW's existing NRT-China frequencies are not route specific; DL could move those frequencies to other gateways to complete its China network if doing s
30 LAXdude1023 : AA will hold their cards close to their chest reguarding China. If the pilots werent an issue, DFW-China would be a priority over LAX-China, however
31 JoFMO : I think you are referring to the old former NW rights. I would expect the same applies to the old UA rights. I remember that they had shifted a NRT-C
32 WorldTraveler : NW's route transfer application to DL shows that NW's currently operating rights are not route specific; that is how NW was able to shift NRTCAN to S
33 MAH4546 : SFOPEK, SFOPVG, and ORDPEK are transferable.
34 DeltaL1011man : More than likely they could use 757s from NRT. SEA will never have the feed it will need to make the smaller citys in China work. Both NW and UA have
35 OA412 : That's only because UA was competing with a new entrant and several airlines with far less China service than they currently have. Additionally, they
36 JoFMO : The only likely option would be to move ORD-PEK to LAX-PEK/PVG. The eastern half of the country would still have a daily flight to PEK and PVG form e
37 Phileet92 : Can a 787 make JFK to CAN? becuase i know that there is a fairly large population of southern chinese folks living in the northeast including myself.
38 JoFMO : As OA412 points out, complete different situation this time. UA 6th route is SFO-CAN. This route was awarded uncontested. It did not matter for the P
39 DeltaL1011man : (even though it was before me) Thanks MAH wasn't 100% sure it was ORD-PEK. Which was my point. lol. thats why I said "If" How many people think DL's
40 OA412 : That's highly likely as the DOT was not all to keen to give NW additional China rights since they are/were able to begin mainland-China at anytime by
41 DeltaL1011man : Maybe DL will have to move them to the mainland before they get anything. IMHO the DOT wasn't to happy about giving NW the rights a few years ago. BT
42 RwSEA : Some speculated that SEA-PEK was announced, in part, to address any such DOT thinking. Might be a moot point, I doubt anyone's bidding as things curr
43 WorldTraveler : AS has a very large hub at SEA in addition to being at the corner of the continental US. If AS' feed at SEA isn't enough to make those routes work, n
44 MAH4546 : No airline flies USA-Harbin, although China Eastern had a very short-lived, 1w flight on the route (and only in one direction) 3-4 years ago. And no
45 DeltaL1011man : has a large hub and It is not a good idea to build flights that need feed (and a s**ton of feed at that) on feed not on your own aircraft........IMHO
46 Post contains links OA412 : http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main? main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480384839 The DOT did not say they were unhappy about awarding NW
47 WorldTraveler : doesn't it scare you that I remembered that short-fleeting low frequency service. that is the whole idea behind the AS/DL codeshare. once again, DL i
48 LAXdude1023 : Im not sure any carrier could make PUS or SPN work from the US. As for GUM, BKK, MNL, and SGN, only LAX could support those flights. SIN could maybe
49 DeltaL1011man : alright then what if AA buys AS? then Delta is screwed. To much of a chance something will go wrong. No I have seen DL do very stupid things before.
50 LAXdude1023 : Indeed. SQ will take just about all of the Premium Passengers. DL could get some Y pax, but they will need to charge an arm and a leg for a flight th
51 WorldTraveler : let's just sit tight and see what DL does across the Pacific when the economy takes an uptick and DL has more than 30 new widebody int'l aircraft tha
52 AznMadSci : CO will start EWR-PVG on 25Mar09 as CO 87 I believe it will be daily till the end of Summer and go down to 5x or 6x. Other than the 77L, what other p
53 LAXdude1023 : I didnt say DL could pull it off from LAX, just that if anyone were going to fly from the United States to those destination, it would have to be LAX
54 DeltaL1011man : 787 and 744. If DL cant make it work from the US they will from NRT.........after all that is kind of the whole point of it. I hardly think DL put in
55 WorldTraveler : I didn't say that DL put it in the contract that AS couldn't merge with anyone. I did say that DL did likely obtain a commitment from AS that any cod
56 Bobnwa : If you would again read what WT said, he didn't say that there was an agreement that AS could not merge with anyone. Suggest you change your statemen
57 AADC10 : Perhaps the economic weakness will press the DOT to back off on their preference for Midwest or East Coast flights to China. The bulk of the demand is
58 JoFMO : If AA, DL and UA all apply for LAX route at the same time, I could see a good change that LAX gets 2 routes to China. If AA decides to go after LAX, C
59 RwSEA : All of those markets are low-yielding, VFR-heavy routes with the exception of SIN. All of them can easily be filled from LAX, but I doubt they can be
60 LAXdude1023 : Texas-China would not be profitable at all in this economy. Indeed they are. Even so, LAX is the only (cant emphisize only enough) airport in the US
61 JoFMO : You might be right. But I wonder it there is any new route in this environment that could make a profit. Airlines that are planning to apply have to
62 AznMadSci : CO may aim for either the 2011 or 2012 slot, especially with lack of planes and the delay of the 787s. It will be interesting to see how EWR-PVG does
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...
New China Routes posted Tue Oct 10 2000 05:14:48 by CNBC
Multiple New Foreign Routes For China Southern posted Sun Jul 27 2003 13:54:06 by Airmale
New US-China Routes posted Fri Jun 2 2000 17:58:14 by SF340
New Int'l Routes Loads At SEA posted Thu Nov 20 2008 18:22:03 by Dutchdragon
New INV Routes posted Sat Nov 15 2008 15:22:16 by BMED
Two New FR Routes To LGW posted Wed Nov 12 2008 04:28:32 by Pe@rson
New Tatl Routes For The New Delta? posted Sat Oct 4 2008 10:38:50 by DeltaL1011man
DL New Intl Routes With 77L? posted Sun Sep 7 2008 13:26:21 by The777Man
New China-Hawaii Charters To Start In July posted Tue May 27 2008 22:08:36 by Ha763
New International Routes And Carriers To Miami? posted Fri Apr 25 2008 16:39:00 by Kevinmia27