Speedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 183 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7916 times:
Hi guys!
I heard that KE will add new LAS-LAX service from this summer and operate total 6 flights in one day from this summer. (3 744s and 3 772s)
So they'll have ICN-LAX, ICN-NRT-LAX, ICN-LAS-LAX, and ICN-LAX-GRU.
Is it true?
Speedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7904 times:
Will they be allowed to carry local traffic or is this a deal like the Qantas LAX-JFK flight? My guess is that the stupid protectionist laws forbid it. A 777 on LAX-LAS would be awesome. Seriously, the government needs to get their heads out of their rears and allow foreign airlines cabotage and investment in America. The consumers would be the big winners.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Aaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1441 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7873 times:
I was aware of the additional flight, though wasn't aware that LAS was the add. Kind of reminiscent of their late 90s LAX sked with the tags to DEN and DFW.
Would often joke with KE's local managers about how KE would eventually need their own terminal at LAX.
*Just checked KE's website. LAS is indeed the add. Looking at their LAX weekly sked for peak summer, Wednesday is the busy day with 7 departures (4 ICN, 1 GRU, 1 LAS, 1 NRT).*
Will they be allowed to carry local traffic or is this a deal like the Qantas LAX-JFK flight?
No local traffic permitted.
[Edited 2009-05-02 23:23:38]
With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
Speedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7835 times:
KE will introduce a brand new 77w in couple weeks, and they said that it will have new F suites, upgraded J, and Y seats. I wonder if they're going to introduce this new aircraft on LAX route.
Wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5524 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
This might the way KE is able to maintain service to ICN somewhat profitably considering the world economy today. Would high-heat performance be a factor in the LAS-LAX decision? Is it possible that KE can't operate a full load (pax and cargo) on the LAS-ICN route nonstop when the summer temp is 115-120 degrees?
Too bad KE won't extend their ICN-SEA route to LAS (or another flight). Could AS put their code on the flight??? Would that be illegal?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14309 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 5): No foreign airline is allowed to sell tickets on a domestic US segment so the only passenger on the domestic segment will be those flying to/from ICN.
Yeah that's what I thought. Those rules flat out suck. We can have a free market, except the government decides who gets to play. Gordon Bethune was right when he said that the airlines are the most regulated deregulated industry.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1590 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7751 times:
The LAS-ICN service is already operating as ICN-LAS-LAX-ICN. The heat is not an issue because originally the flight operated nonstop LAS-ICN, but since it departed at Midnite, the heat was not an issue. The only real change that will be occurring is, the Summer schedule will change from a 772 to a 744...
Speedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7735 times:
FastEddie07 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7670 times:
TreeHillRavens From Malaysia, joined Jun 2007, 339 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7595 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): Seriously, the government needs to get their heads out of their rears and allow foreign airlines cabotage and investment in America. The consumers would be the big winners.
Not only in USA. The whole world is like that. Domestic market is off limit to foreign carriers.
CHCalfonzo From New Zealand, joined Mar 2007, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7559 times:
Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 11):
Not only in USA. The whole world is like that. Domestic market is off limit to foreign carriers.
Not the whole world. Any carrier can operate in New Zealand no matter where they are based/owned. Im sure there are other countries with similar rules.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11200 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7489 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Speedbird0125 (Thread starter): heard that KE will add new LAS-LAX service from this summer and operate total 6 flights in one day from this summer. (3 744s and 3 772s)
Just remind that GRU is not daily
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
4EVERVARIG From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7439 times:
I would suppose it would be logistically sensible to extend some ICN-LAX flights to LAS, as it would not justify to assign a whole new aircraft to serve ICN-LAS, if KE is not making enough revenues to justify such a route. One of the KE managers at LAX tells me that KE doesn't have enough passengers to serve LAS non stop from ICN, however it has enough to justify extending some of the LAX flights. Hopefully, with the world economy turning around, they can return full time non stop to LAS from ICN in the near future.
Lobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7264 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 5): Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Will they be allowed to carry local traffic or is this a deal like the Qantas LAX-JFK flight?
No foreign airline is allowed to sell tickets on a domestic US segment so the only passenger on the domestic segment will be those flying to/from ICN.
This is not entirely true. QF has traffic restriction code Q on its LAX-JFK flight which is not to be mixed up with traffic restriction code A:
Q
INTL ONLINE CONNEX /STOPOVER TRAFFIC
INTERNATIONAL ONLINE CONNECTING OR STOPOVER TRAFFIC ONLY
A
NO TRAFFIC PERMITTED
NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
If KE would be allowed to carry traffic restriction code Q on its domestic US flights as QF is doing it would not only be allowed to carry passengers to/from ICN on the flight, but also passengers to/from NRT and GRU.
In addition it would enable KE to offer stop-over packages. Nevertheless, KE would be prohibited to carry local domestic O&D traffic.
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6799 times:
One of the reasons for more traffic US to korea is for sure the Visa Waiver program in place since about 6 months. THis is good for US and Korea citizens. Not to forget the huge uS bases in Korea. Also Korea can be used as a hub further to asia. ICN is a great airport and Korean air a great airline. Hard to compete for US main airlines if they don't change their way a bit, but still they shouldn't do so bad either.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): Seriously, the government needs to get their heads out of their rears and allow foreign airlines cabotage and investment in America. The consumers would be the big winners.
I may sound foolish because I know next to nothing on this subject matter, but how would this benefit America? I guess I fail to see how consumers would be the big winners here. If money is being spent on the Korean Air flight, isn't it going to Korea instead of America? By blocking sales for LAX-LAS on Korean Air, wouldn't that force citizens to purchase flights on airlines operating within the USA, ultimately leaving their money in the USA? I hope this made sense.
4EVERVARIG From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 66 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 22): surely some of those will go to an A380 once KE receive theirs
Wouldn't KE be restricted to limited number of passengers it can carry per flight, or does anybody know if KE no longer has any restriction of how many customers it can carry at a time per flight?
Quoting Continental (Reply 26): may sound foolish because I know next to nothing on this subject matter, but how would this benefit America? I guess I fail to see how consumers would be the big winners here. If money is being spent on the Korean Air flight, isn't it going to Korea instead of America? By blocking sales for LAX-LAS on Korean Air, wouldn't that force citizens to purchase flights on airlines operating within the USA, ultimately leaving their money in the USA? I hope this made sense
I can see your logic from a local airline's perpective, however I think that the direct benefit for consumers in an open skies competition market where foreign airlines can offer tickets on domestic segments is that it would force local airlines to offer more service, even lower fares against the international airlines flying the same route.
Lets suppose if Korean Air or Singapore Airlines are allowed to sell seats on their segments from LAX to IAD. While UA, AA, CO, DL, and others will fly to IAD from LAX and serve you maybe some dried up pretzels and cheap health bars...at a similar flight on either Korean Air or Singapore, you would be served hot meals in an internationally reknowned service as both airlines are recipients of Excellence in On Board Service Awards and they are constantly competing with each other to be on top. Also, think of doing such a flight in a 747-400 or even a 777 or A 340 and who knows an A 380, against an A 321 or a beat up 767 or 757 from a domestic carrier. If foreign carriers were allowed to fly revenue domestic segments, UA , AA, DL, CO would be less like Southwest and more like Korean or Singapore.
SurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2588 posts, RR: 31 Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
Given LA's massive Korean-American population (as any Angeleno knows, Koreatown dwarfs Little Tokyo and Chinatown!), its really no surprise that KE is so big at LAX. South Korea's entry into the Visa Waiver Program could very well warrant yet another daily ICN-LAX flight!
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
More competition is better for consumers. The standards would most likely go up and fares would drop or remain even.
Plus, I would be in favor of opening American carriers to foreign investment. Infusing a few million into a struggling legacy carrier could do wonders. And for that matter, if a group of foreigners want to start an airline here, they will most likely be hiring Americans.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2855 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): Plus, I would be in favor of opening American carriers to foreign investment. Infusing a few million into a struggling legacy carrier could do wonders. And for that matter, if a group of foreigners want to start an airline here, they will most likely be hiring Americans.
American carriers are open to foreign investment (B6 and VX as examples), as are EU carriers. The only tangible difference is the foreign ownership % allowed (24.9% for USA carriers and 49.9% for EU carriers).
25 Us330: Not necessarily. The money essentially goes to wherever the company has debts or needs it. Considering that a fair amount of U.S. carriers outsource
26 Viscount724: That's not unique to the U.S. Cabotage (domestic traffic rights by a carrier from a foreign country) is extremely rare worldwide, except within areas
27 The777Man: I looked at the schedule for KE's new 77W and they fly fly it ICN-JFK daily eff 1Sep09 on the day flight from JFK, which is a 1400 departure. Still h
28 Luckyone: Assuming that to win over customers and compensate for the cost of the service they don't downgauge their own product. Good, bad, or indifferent, ser
29 4EVERVARIG: Well, I think that people are not willing to pay for service in the United States, especially on US carriers is because, they started cutting too man
30 4EVERVARIG: You probably will, my friend. KE is in the process of retiring their older 744s, and with the delivery of the A380s still a long time from now, you w
31 The777Man: I looked at the schedules again and it seems only on wednesdays will they have 6 flights; four to ICN, one to NRT and one to GRU. The777Man
32 EMB170: True, but there is another side...then you could also have MOL show up and start FR USA- and then the race to the bottom would continue at an even fa
33 Aaway: It is actually seven if you consider the LAS tag.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 183 posts, 
A 777 on LAX-LAS would be awesome. Seriously, the government needs to get their heads out of their rears and allow foreign airlines cabotage and investment in America. The consumers would be the big winners.
From Malaysia, joined Jun 2007, 339 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2007, 161 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11200 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
