dutchflyboi From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5067 times:
With the merger coming, how would this impact the code share between United and Aer Lingus? I am mainly talking about the IAD-MAD route. Crews are being told that 2 new routes are being announced in August (Nice, Barcelona and Geneva are being mentioned from IAD), and that the current flight is not going anywhere, since it is profitable.
Thoughts?
SurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2588 posts, RR: 31 Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5018 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Thread starter): 2 new routes are being announced in August (Nice, Barcelona and Geneva are being mentioned from IAD)
UA already flies IAD-GVA with the 763 and supposedly that does well. Replacing the small, premium-heavy aircraft with a larger Y-heavy plane wouldn't make much sense for that niche route.
NCE and especially BCN would make a lot of sense for the EI A330 to fly. I would also think MXP, VCE, MAN, ATH, and even LIS would be under consideration for the EI operation...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4587 times:
Hmm, can we really see it expanding post merger. I appreciate that it may be profitable on the IAD-MAD route but with CO's influence on the board a slight change of though might mean those new routes if any being on UA's metal. I am just not convinced about a large expansion by EI after the merger. We shall see.
fun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 839 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4333 times:
Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 2): Hmm, can we really see it expanding post merger. I appreciate that it may be profitable on the IAD-MAD route but with CO's influence on the board a slight change of though might mean those new routes if any being on UA's metal. I am just not convinced about a large expansion by EI after the merger. We shall see.
Agreed.
I'd bet it's a bargaining chip they give up (the entire EI deal) for some wins on the pilot contract. There is absolutely no need for this in the new UA. I'm sure the new UA can find a plane to put on IAD>MAD, etc.
shamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4039 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4218 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Thread starter): Crews are being told that 2 new routes are being announced in August (Nice, Barcelona and Geneva are being mentioned from IAD), and that the current flight is not going anywhere, since it is profitable.
Thoughts?
That is also very "co-incidental" given that the crew's initial contract for the secondment to IAD expires in August.....
Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
dutchflyboi From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4149 times:
Quoting shamrock604 (Reply 4): That is also very "co-incidental" given that the crew's initial contract for the secondment to IAD expires in August.....
the contracts don't expire in August. All crews are on a 6 month probation period...that is not the same as a contract expiring in August. Currently there are still some classes in training in Dublin, they are suppose to come online in the next 2 weeks. I am sure that Aer Lingus would not waste money to train people if they are not staying in the IAD market.
shamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4039 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Reply 5): the contracts don't expire in August. All crews are on a 6 month probation period...that is not the same as a contract expiring in August. Currently there are still some classes in training in Dublin, they are suppose to come online in the next 2 weeks. I am sure that Aer Lingus would not waste money to train people if they are not staying in the IAD market.
I was talking about flightdeck, not the cabin crew. I know for 100% that the F/D contracts expire in August, potentially extendable by two years.
Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Quoting fun2fly (Reply 3): I'd bet it's a bargaining chip they give up (the entire EI deal) for some wins on the pilot contract.
I agree , I am sure that this service will end up becoming a bargaining chip - wanting to nip this agreement in the bud before it grows is too attractive a target from the pilots side while from the airlines side it is probably a reasonably easy concession to make .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
dutchflyboi From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 8): I agree , I am sure that this service will end up becoming a bargaining chip - wanting to nip this agreement in the bud before it grows is too attractive a target from the pilots side while from the airlines side it is probably a reasonably easy concession to make .
Could be, at the same token, if the agreement is cancelled, Aer Lingus could just continue the flights without the United partnership. Management is claiming the flights are making a profit.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Reply 9): Could be, at the same token, if the agreement is cancelled, Aer Lingus could just continue the flights without the United partnership. Management is claiming the flights are making a profit.
Profitable with the UA pax , would it remain profitable if EI had to fill it themselves without the benefit of UA pax ? It is my understanding that the flight is currently marketed as a 'true UA' flight so at the moment it is operating from a hub and most of the pax are UA mileage plus members , if the new UA chose to operate the route themselves with their own metal my suspicion is that most of the traffic would move to their flight , would EI profitably be able to fill the flight between two points neither of which is a hub for them ?
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
timberwolf24 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 562 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Might we see Aer Lingus adding flights out of ORD with UA or is this only an IAD venture?
Rising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 235 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2787 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 10): It is my understanding that the flight is currently marketed as a 'true UA' flight
As required by Federal Law, the flight is marketed for what it is, technically nothing more than a code-share. What makes it unique is that United manages the revenue generation while Aer Lingus the operations. But both airlines equally share the commercial benefits and the flight can be booked on Aer Lingus or United.
The flight number is the 4000 series for UA, which is code-share flight code, and when you search the flight, it says, as required by law, operated by Aer Lingus Limited.
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 8): I am sure that this service will end up becoming a bargaining chip
From the outset, both airlines have said that the purpose of the service is to provide profitable new service for both carriers and I don't know of any evidence that would point to both airlines investing heavily in the route just to have it as something United plans to take away for leverage with its unions. This is a route that neither airline could operate profitably alone in the current marketplace, and, to me, the flight demonstrates the power of the code-share. More service options for customers, and a profitable return for UAL's and Aer Lingus' long-suffering owners is a breath of fresh air in this industry.
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Quoting Rising (Reply 13): Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 8):
I am sure that this service will end up becoming a bargaining chip
From the outset, both airlines have said that the purpose of the service is to provide profitable new service for both carriers and I don't know of any evidence that would point to both airlines investing heavily in the route just to have it as something United plans to take away for leverage with its unions.
Please re-read what I actually posted - I did not say that from the outset it was intended to be a bargaining chip - I said that I am sure it will end up becoming a bargaining chip . I do not believe that it was set up to be anything other than what it is , a commercial arrangement to the benefit of both UA and EI , but the situation we are looking at with a CO/UA merger is a very different situation from the one in which this arrangement was born .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Reply 15): So if it was set up to be to the benefit of both airlines, and if it is making money for both airlines, why would the 'new United' not continue it?
two main reasons:
The most important is that it has been quite a contentious issue with UA crews , going into a merger process UA/CO will have their hands full with labour negotiations and if they can get one issue off the table quickly and be seen to make a concession there is a strong incentive for them to do so .
The other reason is that ( in my understanding ) UA went into this agreement with EI because UA lacked international widebody capacity , however , if the merger goes ahead there will be the possibility of moving capacity around the combined system ( in much the same way that some former NW aircraft operate from DL hubs and some DL ( pre-NW ) aircraft operate from the old NW hubs ) which offers the possibility of availability of a suitable "new UA" aircraft .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
dutchflyboi From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16):
The other reason is that ( in my understanding ) UA went into this agreement with EI because UA lacked international widebody capacity , however , if the merger goes ahead there will be the possibility of moving capacity around the combined system
That could be a good reason, but with CO's need for more aircraft to expand internationally and UA being short as well... seems that this argument doesn't hold much weight.
styles9002 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 524 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2490 times:
Quoting dutchflyboi (Reply 17): seems that this argument doesn't hold much weight.
Can you provide links to support the assertion that CO 'needs' more aircraft? While I have not been looking too hard for it, I've yet to see any statements from CO that claim its international expansion is limited by lack of suitable aircraft. I don't doubt that it could be the case although I disagree with your opinion.
dutchflyboi From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2398 times:
Quoting Reply 18): I've yet to see any statements from CO that claim its international expansion is limited by lack of suitable aircraft.
It's common knowledge that CO's international fleet is stretched very thin. But if you like I can do a little research and get you some data if you like
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21217 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 16): The other reason is that ( in my understanding ) UA went into this agreement with EI because UA lacked international widebody capacity , however , if the merger goes ahead there will be the possibility of moving capacity around the combined system ( in much the same way that some former NW aircraft operate from DL hubs and some DL ( pre-NW ) aircraft operate from the old NW hubs ) which offers the possibility of availability of a suitable "new UA" aircraft .
But if it's just about capacity, the merger really won't change things - remember, too, that CO doesn't run any widebodies to MAD (or anywhere else on the Iberian peninsula, for that matter), so it's not like there's a bunch of excess capacity to Spain sitting up at EWR.
With respect to MAD specifically, though, it seems logical to move one of the two 752 flights down to IAD. That will still leave a capacity deficit, and I don't know how they'll manage that, but there's no sense in moving connecting passengers through EWR when IAD is less congested and likely to do the job just as well.
What's the take home message? New UA will have an easy way to keep a presence in IAD-MAD without EI, but that doesn't fix the general lack of widebody capacity in general and widebody capacity for lower-yielding routes in particular.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2008, 333 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2588 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4039 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
