CO-UA-ANA Anti-trust For Pacific — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

CO-UA-ANA Anti-trust For Pacific

Globaldude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 237 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

this should be interesting...

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...nited-continental-and-ana-app.html

15 replies: All unread, jump to last

OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4978 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Yup. This makes it all the more pressing for JL to choose a partner ASAP and get working on an ATI application. They certainly don't want to be disadvantaged in any way by UA/CO/NH.

Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West

LAXdude1023 From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6779 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Why was OZ left out?

[Edited 2009-12-23 18:27:04 by srbmod]

DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.

OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4978 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 3):
Why was OZ left out?

Good question. South Korea has an open-skies agreement with the US and DL/KE have been able to secure ATI. I wonder why Star didn't go for a US-Japan-Korea ATI deal?

[Edited 2009-12-23 18:27:15 by srbmod]

Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West

Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4906 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

Do you think that ANA will start additional flights to NA (cough*IAH*cough) from this deal? Or will we see any type of schedule changes or additions?

Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised

OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4978 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 6):
Do you think that ANA will start additional flights to NA (cough*IAH*cough) from this deal? Or will we see any type of schedule changes or additions?

IMHO they'll probably leave IAH-NRT to CO for now. Perhaps once the 787 comes online they may begin a 2nd daily flight in the market. Of course, they've gone on record saying that they are interested in flying DEN-NRT once they receive their 787s. Other than that I don't really know what else they may be interested in flying. We may begin to see some of the fragmentation that we are seeing across the Atlantic with smaller markets being connected to the Tokyo hub by either CO, UA, or NH depending on aircraft availability, size, etc.

Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West

KL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 7):
Perhaps once the 787 comes online they may begin a 2nd daily flight in the market.

IF it ever comes online within promised specificatioins.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 1):
Yup. This makes it all the more pressing for JL to choose a partner ASAP and get working on an ATI application

¨

They are still government owned, and governments are not known for speedy solutions.

" The European consumer would crawl naked over broken glass to get low fares." Michael O'Leary

LAXdude1023 From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6779 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 6):
Do you think that ANA will start additional flights to NA (cough*IAH*cough) from this deal? Or will we see any type of schedule changes or additions?

Im not real sure. CO's IAH-NRT is such a high-yielding flight that I dont know they want to mess it up. IAH-NRT doesnt even have super-high loads, but it has super high yields. Given that, I think putting another flight on there might drown them.

DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.

BOACCunard From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

The lack of OZ seems odd.

Perhaps they do not think they could get it with OZ in? i.e. That it would be easier to establish a CO/UA/NH JV and then add OZ later?

NH and OZ do seem to have a very close relationship.

Getting There is Half the Fun!

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 3):
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 3):
Why was OZ left out?

Good question. South Korea has an open-skies agreement with the US and DL/KE have been able to secure ATI. I wonder why Star didn't go for a US-Japan-Korea ATI deal?

UA and OZ were granted US antitrust immunity in 2003.

BOACCunard From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
UA and OZ were granted US antitrust immunity in 2003.

But CO and OZ...?

Getting There is Half the Fun!

United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5337 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 10):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
UA and OZ were granted US antitrust immunity in 2003.

But CO and OZ...?

CO and OZ do not have ATI at this point...

UA and OZ are no where near as close as UA and NH are so I would assume that is why they are left out of this filing. Its probbile as you mentioned that the JV will be set up to grow over time just like A++ is set up over the Atlantic.

Semper Fi

Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Perhaps a second daily NRT-NYC (EWR).
They do have the spare long-haul lift available with the 77W or 77E.

Note US Airways was not included in the ATI.

BOACCunard From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 12):
Note US Airways is not included in the ATI.

US isn't even included in Star's Atlantic ATI, and US carries quite a bit of traffic across the Atlantic.

Given that it doesn't even fly to Asia, it would be even less likely to be included here.

Getting There is Half the Fun!

CYAsutomo From Japan, joined Feb 2008, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting KL911 (Reply 6):
They are still government owned

No they're not.

FUN2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 7):
Im not real sure. CO's IAH-NRT is such a high-yielding flight that I dont know they want to mess it up. IAH-NRT doesnt even have super-high loads, but it has super high yields. Given that, I think putting another flight on there might drown them.

My sources at CO tell me they sell the front of the cabin to all Asian destinations very well but do average/poorly which supports the statement above. I'd guess they are looking at the 789 to have a few more BF seats (55 or 60?) for these routes w/less coach and it would fit perfectly. The money's made up front.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 12):
Perhaps a second daily NRT-NYC (EWR).

I think this one is very corporate contract drive. CO had many years w/o UA or NW on the market and could have easily added 2x, but they did not. Now that DL is on the lane, they have already upgauged to a 744. My theory is that there was demand, just not CO demand and DL picked up a nice route.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: