Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO's NRT Flights After UA Tie-up?  
User currently offlineIluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 372 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)? They would be a great addition to United's already impressive operation out of Narita. Presumably, CO will codeshare on UA's beyond-NRT flights and UA will codeshare on both EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT.

It would be interesting if CO extended its flights beyond NRT to expand a joint UA/CO network in Asia. Any ideas where they would be extended to? I think the best options might be EWR-NRT-MNL and IAH-NRT-CGK or perhaps IAH-NRT-HKG. Do they have route authorities (with 5th freedom rights) for many destinations in Asia beyond NRT? Perhaps they would have to shuffle destinations with UA.

MNL is already a CO station (with flights to GUM and ROR), which could mean lower start-up costs. There's also a signficant Filipino community in NY/NJ. CGK seems like it could really support a flight from a US carrier.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6307 times:

Iluv747400-I've suggested that CO start a late-night EWR-HND operation instead (HND allows international operations now between 11 PM and 6 AM), to tie in to ANA's HND operation.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6292 times:



Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):
Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)?

What are you suggesting should happen?

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 1):
Iluv747400-I've suggested that CO start a late-night EWR-HND operation instead (HND allows international operations now between 11 PM and 6 AM), to tie in to ANA's HND operation.

That's interesting, but the plane would then have to sit in HND until 11pm that evening, in effect a 18 hour turn. it wont be very efficient use of aircraft. Then what time do you arrive back in EWR?


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6240 times:

No it wouldn't...get it in in the middle of the night, and get it out right before the 6 AM curfew...


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

a couple of points to bear in mind

1/ the ATI being sought by CO/UA/LH/AC is for Transatlantic routes , I have not yet seen anything to suggest that a similar arrangement is being sought Transpacific

2/ UA is not the only *A member that could offer CO connections beyond NRT - NH has a considerably larger network of destinations beyond NRT than UA does , and OZ CA TG and SQ could also offer connecting opportunities beyone NRT for CO



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6191 times:



Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 3):
No it wouldn't...get it in in the middle of the night, and get it out right before the 6 AM curfew...

I don't get it. Flight would arrive after 11 pm instead of the usual 2:30 pm and tie into ANA's bank of flights leaving HND after midnight? The return flight would depart just before 6 am instead of the usual 4:30 pm, which would tie it in with the 4 am ANA bank into HND?

I think you need to give the idea a rethink.


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Correct on the outbound, wrong on the inbound...would depart Newark around the same time as those Latin American flights, and get into HND in the middle of the night. Would then leave HND about quarter to 6 AM, and get into EWR about the same time as the LatAm flights do.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5957 times:



Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 6):
Correct on the outbound, wrong on the inbound...would depart Newark around the same time as those Latin American flights, and get into HND in the middle of the night. Would then leave HND about quarter to 6 AM, and get into EWR about the same time as the LatAm flights do.

But if the point of flying to HND is to connect to ANA flights, there need to be flights to connect to. An arrival at 11pm and a departure at 6am don't seem to be ideal times for connections, especially since Japan domestic flights aren't very long. I doubt there are many flights leaving HND after 12am (assuming one hour for connecting time), and I doubt there are many flights arriving before 5am (again, one hour for connections).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

Coming back, good point. That said, if the arrival is at 3 AM (more likely), that doesn't do too badly for connections from HND. Besides, HND is also much closer to the city than NRT, and wouldn't do too badly.

Some reason, I figured there would be better late-night connectivity at Haneda than there is. Whoops...big mistake, on my part.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8324 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IF and when Haneda open to airlines from the USA times will probably not change much since most leave at lunch time and arrive into Tokyo around early evening/late afternoon. Some airlines may operate the " Black Hole" specials into HND, those typical departures for Asia at midnight or 1am with arrivals at 5-6am. Such midnight flights may work from JFK, ORD and eastern US cities but LAX, SFO and HNL are too close to Japan and the clock time would only be 3-4 hours since there are 7 hours time difference with California.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5822 times:

The first thing that will happen is CO moves its ops over to T-1 South wing to be next to United and ANA.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5792 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):
IF and when Haneda open to airlines from the USA times will probably not change much since most leave at lunch time and arrive into Tokyo around early evening/late afternoon. Some airlines may operate the " Black Hole" specials into HND, those typical departures for Asia at midnight or 1am with arrivals at 5-6am. Such midnight flights may work from JFK, ORD and eastern US cities but LAX, SFO and HNL are too close to Japan and the clock time would only be 3-4 hours since there are 7 hours time difference with California.

Haneda is open to airlines to fly the "Black Hole" specials.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

CO/UA would be huge in Asia. If they did merge what name would they keep? CO, I hope. I also hope they would keep free meals.


E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5734 times:



Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):

Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)?

Nothing will happen to them. Absolutely nothing.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5668 times:

IINM, another problem with HND is that there are no immigration facilities at either of the main terminals. US flights would have to use the international terminal, which is going to be on the other side of the airport.

Nothing a shuttle bus or train can't fix, but it does hinder connections.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5581 times:



Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):
I think the best options might be EWR-NRT-MNL and IAH-NRT-CGK or perhaps IAH-NRT-HKG. Do they have route authorities (with 5th freedom rights) for many destinations in Asia beyond NRT?

CO does not have 5th freedon rights from NRT. Only UA and DL have them. The USA is only entitled to 2 incumbant 5th freedom carriers in the USA-Japan bi-lateral air services agreement.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5471 times:



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 4):
1/ the ATI being sought by CO/UA/LH/AC is for Transatlantic routes , I have not yet seen anything to suggest that a similar arrangement is being sought Transpacific

The proposed antitrust immunity, if granted, covers all operations worldwide -- except US domestic flying -- of the carriers involved in the application. Now, for countries where open skies is not yet reality, there may be localized constraints on the extent of cooperation -- but in the case of Japan, CO and UA (but not w/NH, for reasons that go beyond this thread) should be able to get immunity approval from the Japanese.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2613 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

If the flights have good load factors into/out of NRT, then a tag-on only adds costs and reduces the time the aircraft is available for hub services. According to UA's current timetable, there would be many connections between UA and UA code shares to/from EWR & IAH with the current CO schedule. With that being said, CO could change the tag in the current UA scheme from a UA 777 to a CO 777 in a merged scenario.
Regarding HND, The local O&D market may shun flights that leave IAH & EWR about 2200 local time and fly all night to arrive about midnight. The return for locals leaving at 6am would mena early arrival at the airport.
If anything, the HND flight would probably be a new station instead of moving NRT flights.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 16):
The proposed antitrust immunity, if granted, covers all operations worldwide -- except US domestic flying -- of the carriers involved in the application.

Hi Avek00 would you mind providing a link for that , everything that I have managed to bring up in google searching with ' Continental Antitrust immunity ' just brings up mention of transAtlantic services , so I am curious to see the wording that includes worldwide operations - thanks



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4941 times:



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 19):
Hi Avek00 would you mind providing a link for that , everything that I have managed to bring up in google searching with ' Continental Antitrust immunity ' just brings up mention of transAtlantic services , so I am curious to see the wording that includes worldwide operations - thanks

The discussion within the DOT's Order to Show Cause makes repeated references to the worldwide nature of the immunity grant. Here is one excerpt:

"2. Scope of the Proposed Alliance

We have considered arguments to limit the scope of the proposed alliance. The primary basis for Delta’s objection is that the applicants do not have joint venture agreements in place on all routes that they might jointly serve. Without such agreements, Delta asserts that a worldwide grant of immunity is premature.

The Department does not require that airlines negotiate joint ventures covering all potential geographic markets to obtain immunity. It does, however, require applicants to submit their plans in enough detail to facilitate a complete competitive and public benefits analysis of a proposed alliance. In this case, we have enough information to analyze the alliance plans. Most of the applicants have been operating the immunized alliance for years. Adding Continental to the alliance does not require them to reconcile mutually exclusive benefit-sharing arrangements, as the SkyTeam applicants would have had to do in 2004, when they sought to merge two immunized alliances without a second-stage agreement to explain how benefits would be passed on to consumers.

In contrast, A++ expands on an existing template to provide for more detailed, integrated, and structured cooperation in many countries. Because the Star carriers already operate with worldwide immunity obtained in prior cases, restricting the scope of the Alliance Agreements at this juncture would primarily serve to disadvantage Continental and its customers. No party has shown a persuasive reason why Continental should be disadvantaged, or, alternatively, why we should take more expansive actions to rescind existing authority held by Star or other alliances.

Delta also objects to the proposed alliance on the basis that it could operate in limited-entry markets where there is no open-skies agreement. Delta’s characterization of the Department’s policy is incorrect. The predicate for our consideration of this case is open skies between the United States and the homeland of the foreign carrier-applicant, not for every third-country destination that might be served. We have consistently allowed cooperation in third-country markets, even in the absence of an open-skies relationship between the United States and the third country. Indeed, the Department has allowed cooperation in some restrictive markets as a means of introducing competitive forces and encouraging additional liberalization. Of course, we recognize Delta’s concern about the potential scarcity of entry opportunities in some markets. In the particular circumstances of this case, however, we will not jeopardize the network benefits of the proposed alliance by limiting the points that can be served, without stronger evidence of competitive harm.

Based on the discussion above, we tentatively find that the proposed alliance should not operate with restrictions on geographic scope."

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...osition=attachment&contentType=pdf



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4925 times:

Don't UA and NWA (now DL) exclusively have the fifth freedom rights out of NRT

I dont think that CO can operate NRT-Asia flights can they and pick up additional passengers?


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4896 times:



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 21):
I dont think that CO can operate NRT-Asia flights can they and pick up additional passengers?

That's correct, no 5th freedoms for CO wrt NRT. But they don't need 'em, anyway -- pax going to non-CO Asian destinations can be routed onto flights operated by UA and AC (or indeed, the flights of any other immunized Star carrier).



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 20):
The discussion within the DOT's Order to Show Cause makes repeated references to the worldwide nature of the immunity grant. Here is one excerpt:

thanks for that  thumbsup 



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2952 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4366 times:

US-HND with the proposed operating hours would not work very well with US carriers.
The any overnight flight departing the US would ahve to leave around 0100 in the summer and midnight during the winter schedules. These hardly connect with the US domestic operations. Secondly, any late night departures to US midwest or further east would arrive too late to connect with the US domestic system.
About the only destinations that could be of use would be US West Coast to HND with arrival around 2200 into HND, which would mean departure of around 1800 local out of the US.
The aircraft can then immediately turn during around and arrive in the late afternoon, with some connection opportunities on the western third of the US.

Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):
EWR-NRT-MNL and IAH-NRT-CGK

NH doesn't even serve MNL or CGK, what makes you think UA could do it with anything they have.


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Let me give EWR's current NRT flights:

CO9, departs EWR 11:10 AM, arrives NRT 1:55 PM+1
CO8, departs NRT 4:35 PM, arrives EWR 4:30 PM

What would be so wrong with, say...

CO395, departs EWR 10:00 PM, arrives HND 12:55 AM+2
CO400, departs HND 5:45 AM, arrives EWR 5:50 AM



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
25 DLPMMM : Have you ever tried to commute anywhere in Tokyo at 1:30 am (after clearing custome and immigration)? 1. The airport busses have all stopped running
26 Jfk777 : How many reasons do you want for it to not happen !!! Continental doesn't need UA much at NRT because the IAH passengers can connect at SFO & EWR pas
27 Yellowtail : If I am not mistaken IAH-NRT is one of COs best performing routes....nice LF, nice yield, nice cargo, no competition, good feed at IAH
28 Carpethead : How many int'l flights depart at 0545AM? Try looking it up. Not many. At some int'l cities, (for example, many Indian cities and SE Asian cities) a 0
29 SHUPirate1 : OK...apparently there's a reason why the "Black Hole" "loophole" at HND isn't used... And FYI, the closest I've ever been to Tokyo is SFO. Clearly, I
30 Mir : No onward connections at 1am, no feeding connections at 5am. About the only way I see this happening is: Depart EWR at 2:00am, arrive HND at 4:55am D
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 Re-Gauging NRT Flights Eff. 25/26 OCT posted Mon Sep 29 2008 21:10:10 by Transpac787
AA,UA,CO,NW Flights Diverting To Remote Airfields? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 07:13:22 by Tallguy14
DL To Tie Up With NW/CO? posted Wed Jan 31 2001 14:37:40 by RayChuang
LH/SN Tie-up Approved posted Mon Jun 22 2009 11:36:17 by BlueFlyer
OAG Changes 6/06/09: AA/CO/F9/FL/NW/UA posted Thu Jun 4 2009 21:41:13 by Enilria
OAG Changes 4/10/09:AA/CO/DL/FI/NW/UA posted Thu Apr 9 2009 21:11:08 by Enilria
UA Wheels-up Landing LAX, 1957 posted Fri Apr 3 2009 18:10:49 by Timz
Two NRT Flights From MSP? posted Sun Mar 29 2009 14:50:30 by Admluvs2fly
Weird: LH-SN Tie-up Suspended By EU posted Mon Jan 26 2009 13:22:58 by NCB
CO, NW/DL, AA, UA When Will They Order Airbus? posted Sun Dec 14 2008 19:33:56 by Plairbus
Merger: CVG > NRT Flights After NW/DL Merger? posted Mon Apr 14 2008 20:25:14 by SQ452
Lost Mainline Flights For UA/CO At CLE posted Tue Jan 24 2012 09:39:59 by TOMMY767
Is This The First UA/CO Aircraft Sub After Merger? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 23:13:00 by dl767captain
OAG Changes 9/10/2010: AA/AC/CO/DL/F9/HA/UA/UP/US posted Tue Sep 7 2010 07:41:02 by enilria
LAS--UA And CO--Clubs/Flights posted Wed Sep 23 2009 10:40:50 by Panova98
UA Re-Gauging NRT Flights Eff. 25/26 OCT posted Mon Sep 29 2008 21:10:10 by Transpac787
AA,UA,CO,NW Flights Diverting To Remote Airfields? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 07:13:22 by Tallguy14
DL To Tie Up With NW/CO? posted Wed Jan 31 2001 14:37:40 by RayChuang
OAG Changes 2/24/2012: AA/CO/DL/FL/F9/UA/US posted Tue Feb 21 2012 12:25:46 by enilria