Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? #2  
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12382 posts, RR: 47
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This thread is continued from Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?

Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? (by ATLflyer Jun 5 2010 in Civil Aviation)


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

From the locked thread:

Quote:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):
You conspired by hanging on to work rules that let your competitors provide similar services at lower costs.

Many legacy work groups have adopted more favorable rules and become much more efficient. The only one that is really "hanging on" is AA

I don't see any of them cleaning the cabins between flights like WN does, unless I missed something...

Quote:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):

No, what has given us cheaper fares is that other companies are able to provide similar services at lower costs.

The gap between legacy and LCC labor cost has significantly dropped in recent years.

Sure, but I didn't narrow my comments to labor costs, I just said "similar services at lower costs".

And I did mention executive pay too. The difference between Arpey's paycheck and Kelly's is just crazy.

Quote:

Besides legacies chase a different market type than the LCC.

Kia can provide a car much cheaper than Lexus, BMW, or Audi but yet a market still exists for luxury cars. Legacy carriers chase after high yielding first and business class passengers as the cornerstone of their business strategy, unlike WN and B6. Currently AA, UA, CO, DL, US chasing after this segment of the market and competing with WN, B6, FL etc. for the low yield people in back is unsustainable. 3 legacies competing in their market segment and 3-4 LCCs competing in their segment is plenty. That also allows a little overlap domestically.

Chasing after the front of the cabin isn't a winning strategy either. Almost all US companies have cut back drastically on travel, and have changed travel policies to limit who can fly F or C. My company has a preferred legacy carrier, but encourages us to pick LCCs if the prices shown on our internal travel portal are lower for the LCC. The last few times I flew I chose B6 over the legacy because it provided a better service at a lower cost than the legacy.

Quote:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):
Absurd. Passengers are not under any obligation to pay the "true cost" of the legacy's business practices just like they are under no obligation to pay the "true cost" of GM's.

I'm not talking about just legacy carriers but the entire industry. I'm sick of passengers whining about so called high fares when in fact they have plummeted since deregulation and continue to plummet despite rising fuel costs. Airline labor could work for free and airlines would still lose money because the number of carriers and level of competition would continue to drive down ticket prices and keep them at unsustainable levels. Chapter 11 and practically free capital have allowed uncompetitive airlines to remain in the market and unsustainable upstarts to keep popping up (SkyBus anyone?)

Airlines need to stop chasing market share and in order for that to happen there needs to be fewer competitors. The status quo isn't working in the US industry.

I agree about CH11 and stupid investors keeping unprofitable carriers in the market, but now CH11 rules and access to capital are both tougher, and there now are less competitors after NW/DL and UA/CO, and I doubt things will change much. It's still about providing a good product at a low cost and the legacies and their employees have no interest in or aptitude at doing that.

You seem to think the way solution is a sustained rise in ticket prices, but all that will do is drive customers out of the market by elimiating those who can no longer afford to travel and by making alternatives such as teleconferencing that much more attractive. Also a long term rise in prices makes it that much more tempting for stupid investors to decide that the time is right to try uet again to undercut the legacies.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5324 times:

Delimit wrote "If there had been a long ranger twin competing against it the 744 would never have racked up all those sales."
Do you mean like the 763?

norcal wrote "A Delta FF/business traveler on either of the coasts might then be forced to transfer through DTW or MSP to catch an A380 flight to Asia.'
Maybe the problem lies in the location of DL's hubs... Take UA/CO with hubs at SFO, ORD and EWR (let's forget for a moment about IAH and DEN). Most everybody in the US would be able to connect efficiently, without backtracking.

XT6Wagon wrote "Worse the A380 doesn't have the lowest CASM. ANA operates a 777 with 516 seats in 2 class configuration."
I guess if ANA were to put 880 passengers in a 380, the CASM would be even lower, right?

XT6Wagon wrote "Selling seats below CASM is going to be required to fill a plane."
How do you know this? Which plane? Any plane? Or just the 380?

XT6Wagon wrote "In short, CASM without lots of other numbers and figures to provide context is meaningless. Using it to prove one plane is better than another is ALLWAYS meaningless."
Is it ALWAYS meaningless? Or always except when comparing a 77W with a 346?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineDelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1502 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
Delimit wrote "If there had been a long ranger twin competing against it the 744 would never have racked up all those sales."
Do you mean like the 763?

The 763 is in no way, shape or form able to compete with the 747. It lacks the range. The 772ER was probably the first twin to really start letting airlines flying those with smaller aircraft.

Compare the following:
747: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_rc_newyork.html
767: All I can find is the freighter (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_rc_fgt_newyork.html). The 300ER has longer range, but nowhere near what the 744 or 772ER can do.
777: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_rc_newyork.html

That said, how many 747s do you see being operated on routes where the 767 is competitive? And how many 767s (or A330s)?


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
If you want a better number try Trip Cost. Its still much more useful with context, but it atleast carries some of its own. It even shows why the A380 has done well with a trip cost roughly equal to a 744 but allowing for extra revenue over a 744.

Trip costs alone can show why the A380 has done well, yet you've had to include the capacity and in effect the CASM of the 2 aircraft in the example of this in action?   

Trip costs are as meaningless without context, and as important with it as CASM is.

[Edited 2010-06-10 15:44:44]

User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting Delimit (Reply 3):
That said, how many 747s do you see being operated on routes where the 767 is competitive? And how many 767s (or A330s)?

Just as as example, BA flies 5 744s (and a 772) per day between LHR and JFK.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 3):
767: All I can find is the freighter (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_rc_fgt_newyork.html). The 300ER has longer range, but nowhere near what the 744 or 772ER can do.

The 763ER can fly from anywhere in western Europe to LAX, from the US west coast to most cities in Asia, etc.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5092 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
You seem to think the way solution is a sustained rise in ticket prices, but all that will do is drive customers out of the market by elimiating those who can no longer afford to travel and by making alternatives such as teleconferencing that much more attractive.

No my solution is to end the race to the bottom and end the continuous sale wars. Sustained ticket prices so the industry can actually stabilize. If ticket prices do happen to come up all you are cutting out is the Spirit crowd that'll only fly when they get a super deal (usually sold below cost). These are not the consistent customers that keep an airline profitable.

WN for example doesn't always have the cheapest fare. What they have are consistent fares that are reasonable and a fare structure that makes sense. Sure if you buy the fare 8 months in advance you can probably get it cheaper on a legacy but if you show up 8 hours before the flight, WN will most certainly be cheaper. If you want to talk about "gouging" look at a walk up Y fare on a legacy.

A legacy with a smaller delta between fares (of all types including premium tickets) would be much better than the current fare structure we employ. It would probably lead to a lower load factor but that hasn't stopped WN from being profitable.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
I don't see any of them cleaning the cabins between flights like WN does, unless I missed something...

Just because it isn't in our contract doesn't mean that all employees don't help out.

If you want to talk about pay/work rules, look at the pay rates of a WN 737 CA and a CO 777 CA. They both have roughly the same hourly rate, only the CO 777 has over 2x the number of seats (plus higher yield Business First seats).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
Chasing after the front of the cabin isn't a winning strategy either.

Internationally it is, which is where most of the legacies are expanding rapidly because domestically they can't compete and will never be able to compete with the LCCs. Even if you made identical labor pay rates, work rules, and benefits between WN and an airline like AA, WN will still have a lower cost structure because they only operate one a/c type. That means one training standard for pilots, mx, FAs, etc. and one set of spare parts. Having multiple fleet types is an additional cost for legacies but they need them to serve all the different market types.

Domestically, first class exists mainly to keep the FF fliers happy with upgrades.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
Maybe the problem lies in the location of DL's hubs... Take UA/CO with hubs at SFO, ORD and EWR (let's forget for a moment about IAH and DEN). Most everybody in the US would be able to connect efficiently, without backtracking.

Problem? What problem? Delta has flights to Asia from ATL, JFK, SEA, SFO, LAX, PDX, MSP, SLC, and DTW. Basically every hub except MEM and CVG (both of which will probably be dropped or turned into RJ hubs).

http://www.delta.com/planning_reserv...ions/download_route_maps/index.jsp

Should Delta consolidate all flights to Tokyo from 1 or 2 hubs instead of from multiple cities they currently do? Should Delta stop flying from SFO, LAX, SLC, PDX and SEA to NRT in favor of trying to funnel those passengers into DTW, JFK, or ATL to catch A380 flights? What incentive would a SFO or LAX high yielding passenger (or any west coast passenger) have to stick with Delta and back track across the country when they could choose a direct flight with UA/CO?

Is it cheaper to right size the market and fly 787s and A350s from all the cities they currently do with minimal risk?

Or is it cheaper to buy a sub fleet of A380s and and inconvenience passengers by back tracking them across the country with an extra flight?

Or is it cheaper to invest millions and try and open a new mega hub on the west coast capable of supporting A380s? What will that do to yields when DL tries to duke it out with UA/CO in SFO.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 6):
Should Delta consolidate all flights to Tokyo from 1 or 2 hubs instead of from multiple cities they currently do? Should Delta stop flying from SFO, LAX, SLC, PDX and SEA to NRT in favor of trying to funnel those passengers into DTW, JFK, or ATL to catch A380 flights? What incentive would a SFO or LAX high yielding passenger (or any west coast passenger) have to stick with Delta and back track across the country when they could choose a direct flight with UA/CO?

Well, you were saying that it would make no sense to concentrate all DL intercontinental traffic through MSP and DTW. I agree. However, it may make sense to channel all or most of UA/CO intercontinental traffic through SFO, ORD and ERW. That's all I was saying.

[Edited 2010-06-10 17:49:37]


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

FlyPNS1:
Where do I get the cheap fares in Asia?
At the many travel agent/internet cafe/tailor shops/bar/massage parlor/cleaners shops in Bangkok and Hong Kong.
The only time I paid 3 figures for an intra-Asia flight was in Royal First Class on Thai Airways between Bangkok and Hong Kong on their last 747-300.




FX1816:
You need to read what I typed more carefully. I stated "other major cities" with CRJs and I specefically said "increasingly" more CRJs.
I've flown on CRJs between Philadelphia - Detroit and Phoenix to San Francisco.
Those are major cities and the CRJ is too small of an aircraft between such cities of that size. There is no need to have multiple flight times between those two cities considering I spend almost 2 hours waiting in traffic on the tarmac at PHL.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

Quoting Delimit (Reply 3):
The 763 is in no way, shape or form able to compete with the 747

Wrong! On North Atlantic routes the 767 competes with the 747 since decades.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 3):
That said, how many 747s do you see being operated on routes where the 767 is competitive? And how many 767s (or A330s)?

Not long ago (some years), 747's carried the largest portion of seats carried by a single aircraft type over the North Atlantic. Despite the 767 and the A333 which has even lower CASM than the 744. Those 744 have not been bought because of range. I estimate that only a fraction of all 744 have been bought because of range. Initial drivers IMO were efficiency and capacity.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4):
Trip costs alone can show why the A380 has done well, yet you've had to include the capacity and in effect the CASM of the 2 aircraft in the example of this in action?

Trip costs are as meaningless without context, and as important with it as CASM is.

No, CASM is completely meaningless without context, Trip cost is useful if incomplete. For example it gives you the minimum amount of revenue you have to find to avoid losing money on the trip. Doesn't matter if its the Queen of England wanting a solo flight (zomg huge real CASM) or a pile of cargo.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
I guess if ANA were to put 880 passengers in a 380, the CASM would be even lower, right?

Yes, it would but as today the lowest CASM plane flying isn't a A380. When the high density configurations arrive in a couple of years, then yes it will be the best.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
How do you know this? Which plane? Any plane? Or just the 380?

Its basic economics. The price at which you should fill the seat is when it covers the varible costs for the flight. Which for an airline in the short term is nearly nothing. In practice most Airlines won't come down anywhere near that far given they try to fill the cheap seats weeks or months ahead of time and progressively raise the cost as flight time approches. So guessing how badly they need to sell that last seat months ahead of time is... complex. Guess too low and you fly with a full plane and lost potential revenue. Guess too high and you fly half full and again lost potential revenue. This holds true for ANY plane. Now a 6 seat puddlejumper is going to have a very easy time pricing seats, while a A380 will keep the best in the buisness working hard to ensure they are pricing seats right. Yet the rewards match the difficulty as a full A380 will generate huge revenue.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
Is it ALWAYS meaningless? Or always except when comparing a 77W with a 346?

Yes, CASM by itself is completely meaningless. Even for "comparable" planes. Without knowing configuration differences, routes, etc, etc, etc, one plane might be night and day better than the other despite a higher CASM.

Which would you rather have haul 1600 passengers a day between two cities 30min apart, 2 A320 making 5 trips each or 1 A380 making two trips. Your CASM figure for a 800 seat A380 will look to be a tiny fraction of the A320's. Yet in one case you have roughly $120M list price in frames doing the work of a $300M list A380, with actual lower real world costs per passenger. Oh and you will have higher revenue on the A320 thanks to higher frequency just to kick the A380 while its down. Perhaps you can understand now why CASM is highly meaningless without context.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
Trip cost is useful if incomplete.

No it isn't, it's absolutely useless. Yes it might tell you how much revenue you need from an aircraft, but if you don't know the revenue potential of that aircraft then it is simply a meaningless number.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
Which would you rather have haul 1600 passengers a day between two cities 30min apart, 2 A320 making 5 trips each or 1 A380 making two trips. Your CASM figure for a 800 seat A380 will look to be a tiny fraction of the A320's. Yet in one case you have roughly $120M list price in frames doing the work of a $300M list A380, with actual lower real world costs per passenger.

Well, while those 320 would spend all day on those 5 round trips, the 380 would spend only half a day on those two round trips. Hopefully one could find some other route for them to ply on the other half of the day, bringing in about twice the revenue compared to the 320s.

But neither I nor anybody else is proposing to use 380s on 30 min trips. That is, unless you need to haul 16000 people per day, instead of 1600, between those two cities. Examples do exist...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4382 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
However, it may make sense to channel all or most of UA/CO intercontinental traffic through SFO, ORD and ERW. That's all I was saying.

That doesn't make sense either when UA/CO could very well support flights from LAX and IAD (it is the nation's capitol after all) to Asia. Heck DEN might even be able to support a flight to Asia (DL can do it from SLC). Also EWR is notoriously delay prone, should UA/CO put all of their east coast eggs in one basket? Also what about IAH? AA offers direct flights from DFW. As a business traveler do I want to fly from IAH-ORD-NRT or IAH-SFO-NRT or IAH-EWR-NRT to catch the A380 flight when the flight from IAH-DFW is much shorter and much less prone to delays? What can UA/CO say to a Houston based company that'll make them choose UA/CO over AA and land the lucrative business contract? The direct IAH-NRT flight would be a much better selling point and will likely get a premium over the non-direct flight.

If UA were to ignore a city like LAX and try and force those passengers up to SFO for an A380 flight they'd lose that premium traffic to DL or any other carrier that operated the direct flight.

You could argue that it'd be "better" for DL to use their code share with AS to send PDX passengers to SEA but apparently DL can get enough of a revenue premium to justify the direct flight from PDX-NRT.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4344 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 13):
As a business traveler do I want to fly from IAH-ORD-NRT or IAH-SFO-NRT or IAH-EWR-NRT to catch the A380 flight when the flight from IAH-DFW is much shorter and much less prone to delays?

I see no real difference between IAH-SFO-NRT and IAH-DFW-NRT.

Quoting norcal (Reply 13):
The direct IAH-NRT flight would be a much better selling point and will likely get a premium over the non-direct flight.

Of course, a non-stop IAH-NRT beats any one-stop itinerary. But what if I don't want to go to NRT, but to, say, ICN? Or HKG? or PEK? Or PVG? Or TPE? Or KIX? Or MNL? Or SIN? or BKK? Or SYD? Will IAH support non-stop flights to all these places? No. Will , say, CLE, support flights to any of these places? No. Hubs are needed. And a large hub could/should be able to support profitable operations of a few (maybe quite a few) VLAs.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4312 times:

In the end, US airlines don't want the A380 for one reason: there are too many international gateway airports, and as such it could all be accommodated by smaller planes.

Just on the US West Coast alone, we have three major gateway airports: SEA, SFO and LAX. In the Central USA, we have these gateway airports: DEN, DFW, IAH, MSP, DTW, ORD and CVG. And on the US East Coast, we have these gateway airports: BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, CLT, ATL, MCO and MIA.

With that many gateway airports, smaller long-range planes better serve US-based airlines, and that's why I expect the 787-8 and 787-9 to be very popular with US-based airlines over the next decade.


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
I see no real difference between IAH-SFO-NRT and IAH-DFW-NRT.

Well besides SFO being very delay prone there is not much of a difference, which is exactly the point! How does UA/CO convince a Houston company to choose them over AA for a business contract? They have to offer something that differentiates themselves to land the contract. A direct flight would do it, but let's not just leave it at that. What about all the other potential customers in the gulf state region?

Would a passenger in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. want to choose UA/CO knowing they have to fly from their hometown airport to IAH then to SFO then to Asia when AA can do it hometown to DFW to Asia or DL could do it hometown to ATL to Asia?

In that situation DL and AA could could command a revenue premium (by offering the more convenient flight schedule) and capture the higher yielding passengers leaving UA/CO to gather whatever is left.


Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Of course, a non-stop IAH-NRT beats any one-stop itinerary. But what if I don't want to go to NRT, but to, say, ICN? Or HKG? or PEK? Or PVG? Or TPE? Or KIX? Or MNL? Or SIN? or BKK? Or SYD? Will IAH support non-stop flights to all these places? No. Will , say, CLE, support flights to any of these places? No. Hubs are needed. And a large hub could/should be able to support profitable operations of a few (maybe quite a few) VLAs.

Well considering that IAH is going to be the combined carrier's largest (or 2nd largest hub, can't remember) I'd say yes. That doesn't mean that they'll ignore the other hubs though since most of them can support flight to a lot of those cities.

EWR is located in the most populous center of the US, it will support some direct flights.

ORD will serve the midwest, it can support some direct flights

IAH will serve the south, it can support some direct flights

SFO has a huge Asian population it can support some direct flights

LAX is the second largest population center in the country, it can support a lot of direct flights

IAD is the nation's capitol, in addition to serving as relief for EWR, it can support some direct flights.

CLE will probably cease to exist as a hub since it is redundant to ORD (much like what is happening with DL and CVG)


There are probably a few routes for both UA/CO and DL that can support A380s but at the end of the day does the cost/benefit analysis work in favor of getting the additional type in the fleet? I don't think so. If UA/CO or DL or AA choose to ignore certain markets in favor of trying to consolidate passengers into a few mega hubs for A380 flights what'll happen is their competitors will swoop in and take the high yielding passengers that'll pay a premium for the direct flight.

[Edited 2010-06-11 08:35:09]

User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 15):
Just on the US West Coast alone, we have three major gateway airports: SEA, SFO and LAX. In the Central USA, we have these gateway airports: DEN, DFW, IAH, MSP, DTW, ORD and CVG. And on the US East Coast, we have these gateway airports: BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, CLT, ATL, MCO and MIA.

That's a total of 19, and you're being pretty generous adding DEN, CVG and MCO. With similar criteria I could write this list of European intercontinental gateways: LIS, MAD, CDG, ORY, LHR, LGW, MXP, FCO, ZRH, FRA, MUC, DUS, AMS, BRU, CPH, ARN, HEL, IST, DME... And on and on. Will all of them see 380 service? No! Well, unless EK decides otherwise... But will some of them serve as bases for multiple 380s? Sure: LHR, CDG, FRA for starters.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 16):
Would a passenger in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. want to choose UA/CO knowing they have to fly from their hometown airport to IAH then to SFO then to Asia when AA can do it hometown to DFW to Asia or DL could do it hometown to ATL to Asia?

Well, no. Hopefully those passengers would be able to fly hometown-ORD-Asia, for instance.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Well, no. Hopefully those passengers would be able to fly hometown-ORD-Asia, for instance.

But by forcing everyone through ORD instead of having the IAH flight you lose the direct flight selling pitch to Houston based business travelers. By keeping IAH-Asia flights you offer a slightly shorter connection to gulf state passengers but you mainly offer a huge selling point to Houston businesses, direct flights.

Houston is 2nd to New York City for the number of fortune 500 companies headquartered.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/cities/

Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the US, with a lot of fortune 500 companies headquartered there. They can support direct flights to Asia too. Why inconvenience business travelers in either city by making them connect to a mega hub to catch the A380 flight? Why not offer them direct flights from their respective cities and offer slightly better connections for other cities in the region?


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 19):
But by forcing everyone through ORD instead of having the IAH flight you lose the direct flight selling pitch to Houston based business travelers.

Sure, but I thought now we were discussing the travel options of the people from OK, MS, AL, and LA (the states, not the airlines!).



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
Sure, but I thought now we were discussing the travel options of the people from OK, MS, AL, and LA (the states, not the airlines!).

They aren't mutually exclusive. They offer the IAH - Asia flights because it benefits the Houston business traveler (of which there are many) AND it offers a more convenient connection for the gulf state passengers.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 3716 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 17):
That's a total of 19, and you're being pretty generous adding DEN, CVG and MCO.

The reason why I mention CVG is that this is a major hub for Delta Airlines (potentially feeder traffic for international flights) and I mention MCO due to the fact this airport serves the gigantic resorts in the Orlando area, especially Walt Disney World and Universal Studios Orlando. That's why you see a lot of European charter airlines fly to MCO on a regular basis (TUI AG's various charter airlines all have flights to MCO from various destinations in Europe).


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

It looks like DL is actually quite successful with the PDX-NRT run. They've decided to continue the flight after the $3.5 million subsidy runs out.

DL To Retain PDX-NRT After Subsidy Runs Out (by CGKings317 Jun 12 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Even a tiny city of 500,000 can present a unique business opportunity to DL and help them grab west coast traffic from power house competitors there like UA and AA.


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...
Why Don't US Carriers Fly To The ME posted Fri Jul 13 2001 16:36:12 by Bokratensa
Why Don't US Carriers Fly To SA? posted Tue Feb 1 2005 12:59:45 by Bluepoole
Why Don't US Carriers Make Money? posted Thu Nov 27 2003 07:18:53 by Qantasclub
Why Don't US Carriers Brand Domestic F As C? posted Tue Jun 10 2003 00:29:33 by Zrs70
Would Any US Airline Order The A380? posted Sat Dec 23 2000 21:11:20 by Expex
Why Don't More US Carriers Fly The Q400? posted Tue Sep 29 2009 13:53:48 by LHCVG
Why Haven't Any US Carriers Ordered The 7E7? posted Sat Jul 31 2004 02:56:39 by Horus
Why Only Two US Carriers With The B734? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 06:12:51 by VH-BZF
Why No US Carriers To KUL posted Wed Mar 3 2010 16:27:03 by Qantas777
Question:would Cathay Order The A380 If.. posted Wed Nov 19 2008 00:52:01 by Beaucaire