Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA/CO To Launch ORD-MAN/BHX/OSL/KIX/ICN In 2011?  
User currently offlineGlobalCabotage From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 605 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15829 times:

Not sure how reliable this is, but a friend of mine in Chicago says ORD-MAN/BXH/OSL will operate next year on 757 aircraft, KIX will return and ICN will be added (but daytime flight, not to compete with Asiana).

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6357 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15814 times:

Can a 752 even make it OSL-ORD?


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7812 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15783 times:

The European ones seem feasible.

I highly doubt ORD-KIX will come back. Its a marginal route and landing fees at KIX suck.

ORD-ICN isnt completely out in left field, but I question if ORD-ICN can support 3 carriers.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2728 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15667 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 1):
Can a 752 even make it OSL-ORD?

ORD-OSL is 60 miles longer than the default limit of EWR-TXL. EWR-TXL is operated in the winter with 762 equipment due to heavy winds. Maybe the headwinds are not as bad with a routing that's more north than EWR-TXL or ORD may be able to fit these flights in without delay.
But, these additions would indicate some CO 752s will be repositioned into ORD. That means either remaining CO 752 domestic flights may be cut and replaced by 739ER new deliveries OR that UA select 763ERs may be diverted from domestic routings to EWR-Europe and replaced by 753 or 739ER units.
These potential additions are where the merger will help in allowing reassignment of existing aircraft and backfilling those aircraft with new 739ER deliveries and/or reassignment of some 753 aircraft.
I'd say look for more of these types of additions, including some shorter, less-competitive IAD markets with 752 aircraft.


User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

thats what will be nice with ORD as a hub as well with the ability to utilize 757's to some UK secondary airports.


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15618 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
CO 752 domestic flights may be cut and replaced by 739ER new deliveries OR that UA select 763ERs may be diverted from domestic routings to EWR-Europe and replaced by 753 or 739ER units.

I'm thinking more 767s and 777s on EWR-Europe to free up more 757s for ORD. CO barely has any 757s running domestic in the US right now.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlinetimberwolf24 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15546 times:

If UA does add these flight I will be interested to see what AA response will be. Will AA run or will they begin to rebuild their international presents from ORD again?


Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15310 times:

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 6):
If UA does add these flight I will be interested to see what AA response will be. Will AA run or will they begin to rebuild their international presents from ORD again?

Is there enough "pie" to go around in Chicago like NYC has for DL, AA, and CO? It seems like AA has a nice deal going with their two fortress hubs in MIA and DFW, and their decent presence at LAX, JFK, and ORD.


User currently offlineEwrkid From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15141 times:

I think it would make more sense to add EWR-ICN then ORD-ICN as ORD has a fair amount of service to ICN.

User currently offlinetpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15143 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 5):
I'm thinking more 767s and 777s on EWR-Europe to free up more 757s for ORD. CO barely has any 757s running domestic in the US right now.

You could also shift from EWR to ORD. Both various cities from EWR are 2X 752. Moving, say the 10p bank to ORD, could open up new routes, new connections, but not add a flood of new seats to the market.

Replace: CO 38 EWROSL 8p

CO138EWROSL 10p

with CO 38 EWROSL 8p

CO138ORDOSL 8p


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14638 times:

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 10):

You could also shift from EWR to ORD. Both various cities from EWR are 2X 752. Moving, say the 10p bank to ORD, could open up new routes, new connections, but not add a flood of new seats to the market.

And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2908 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14558 times:

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
a friend of mine in Chicago says ORD-MAN/BXH/OSL will operate next year on 757 aircraft

Why would ORD see service to these markets before IAD? I would think IAD would see service to strong CO markets (LIS, MAD, TLV immediately come to mind) before ORD would. The next European stations to see service from ORD would be, IMO, existing UA destinations of ZRH and/or DME.

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
KIX will return

Well, KIX was the old UA gateway to GUM when they used to fly there in the 90's. Maybe with onward connectivity to HND (with NH) and GUM (on CO Mike) it will make sense, but I would think UA would want to restart NGO before giving ORD-KIX yet another try.

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
ICN will be added

I almost think it makes more sense for CO to start EWR-ICN rather than UA to add a redundant ORD-ICN frequency.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinetpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14416 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 13):
And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.


I agree! Plus you open markets X/ORD that you don't have via EWR. In addtion 3 cabin UA A/C are better suited for EWR-LHR, while CO's are better for ORD-BHX. I am sure the coming years will see lots of shuffling


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3474 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14401 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 13):
And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.

CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Hypothetically on a RDU-EWR-DUB flight where the EWR-DUB flight leaves at 7pm or 10pm I have a variety of options for RDU-EWR as long as I depart before 6-7. If you take away the 10pm flight and move it to a 7pm ORD-OSL then regardless where I connect I have to leave RDU no later than 3-4. If you are going to split up the frequencies at EWR at least alter the departure time

Current:
EWR-DUB 710 752
EWR-DUB 955 752

New
EWR-DUB 9pm 762
IAD-DUB 10pm 752
ORD-DUB 7pm 752


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14310 times:

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 18):
while CO's are better for ORD-BHX. I am sure the coming years will see lots of shuffling

I hope so. CO's EWR growth strategy has been rather conservative in recent years.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 20):
CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Yeah but at the same time it's redundant. You use more frequencies for those commuter flights, leading to more congestion, and sometimes those flights go out empty to fill up another 757 when you can just use a larger plane at one time of the day and condense those ERJ and Q400 frequencies to fill up a 737 or 319/320 instead. Not to mention there is a true lack of premium cabin on some of these regional markets out of EWR in which they could use one. CO used to fly DC-10s and 767s on many of these TATL routes that have gone to 2x 757 a day. One of the reasons is CO just didn't take deliveries of as many 767 and 777 as they should have back in the day.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14160 times:

Quoting GlobalCabotage (Thread starter):
BXH

Imagine this is really BHX? Balhash, Kazakstahn seems a small market from ORD!  

If ORD-BHX does happen would it be seasonal, complimentary to the EWR flight or replacement? CO can only keep EWR going 6x weekly in the winter at the moment so I can't see ORD and EWR in the winter. If this does occur would this put an end to any chance of AA or DL service to the US from BHX? Much as I would like a DL or AA flight (another way home for me) I just can't see that much demand from BHX at the moment, too many people from the Midlands still head to MAN or for some reason LHR.


User currently offlinetpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14036 times:

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 20):
CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Hypothetically on a RDU-EWR-DUB flight where the EWR-DUB flight leaves at 7pm or 10pm I have a variety of options for RDU-EWR as long as I depart before 6-7. If you take away the 10pm flight and move it to a 7pm ORD-OSL then regardless where I connect I have to leave RDU no later than 3-4. If you are going to split up the frequencies at EWR at least alter the departure time

Current:
EWR-DUB 710 752
EWR-DUB 955 752

New
EWR-DUB 9pm 762
IAD-DUB 10pm 752
ORD-DUB 7pm 752

That fact crossed my mind when I posted above. I guess you just can't have your cake and eat it too. I suspect the greater conx to the Midwest and/or South, out weight the gain 2X daily offers from EWR.

We may see diff markets get diff results depending on traffic flow. Some will likely do better with more diverse conx while others will be more EWR/NYC centric. It will be fun to watch play out.

One of few parts of the whole affair I don't hate.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2728 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14148 times:

I'm sure different markets will be looked at with different criteria and demand for premium services. However, CO's running 7 markets this summer with 2X 752 equipment (AMS, EUB, EDI, MAD, MAN, OSL, SNN).
That's 350 seats per day (except on MAD 11/week, OSL 10/week, SNN 11/week). Add in 3 752 to LHR and 1 752 to CDG.

No single aircraft in the CO or UA fleet has 350 seats. And if the new UA tries one aircraft, there will be connections lost due to the loss of one frequency.

UA 763ER, 183 seats, 167 seats short of 350.
CO 772ER, 285 seats, 65 seats short of 350
UA 772ER, 249 seats, 101 seats short of 350
CO 764ER, 235 seats, 115 short of 350.

If UA aircraft are used to attract First Class, it could only generate enough pax to fill the small cabins of 10 seats on the 772ER and 6 on the 763ER.

Questions:
Is gaining limited First Class seats worth dropping tons of total seats from a market?
Will the merged carrier try to move connections thru IAD and ORD to reduce seat required from EWR?
Is the UA Business Class more or less desirable than CO's configuration?
How much extra revenue does UA's Y+ gain vs. CO's Y?

The best solution might be to pull some 763ERs from UA domestic system and Hawaii, then substitute 763ERs for some 752 flights in the first bank from EWR. The 763ERs can be freed by subbing selected flights with 753, 738/739ER or doubling up on some domestic hub-to-hub flights.
This would result in an equal number of 752s becoming available for new international service from ORD and IAD service.
To accomplish this, it would seem at least a few domestic 763ERs could be converted to International configs.

[Edited 2010-08-17 21:30:11]

User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14188 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):
I hope so. CO's EWR growth strategy has been rather conservative in recent years.

Is this a problem? CO's EWR hub is almost fully built out to Europe. Any future growth to Europe will likely be beefing up to *A hubs. I don't see much Eastern Europe expansion coming for CO, the real additions will be to Asia/Africa with the 787, IMO.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):
One of the reasons is CO just didn't take deliveries of as many 767 and 777 as they should have back in the day.

It's likely CO would have gone broke with too much excess capacity during the leaner years post-9/11. It was a conservative decision, but one that led to the sustainability of the carrier. The aircraft financing game is a tricky one, and you really can't fly planes you can't afford. With that said, CO's only widebody cancellations were of 10 767s in 2001/02 and the handful of 777s somewhat recently. Most order changes have been deferrals.

I also would disagree with the strategy of dismantling CO's 10pm Europe bank and shipping it to ORD/IAD. It's no secret that business travelers prefer flexibility in schedules, and with multiple departures to most destinations, CO can offer the all-important NYC traveler more options than other carriers. It is a strong competitive advantage. Plus, CO's utilization model often calls for short turns at international outstations, so later arrivals in the EU permit more desirable early afternoon westbound departures without sacrificing revenue-producing hours.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
indicate some CO 752s will be repositioned into ORD

CO's RR 752s are really only effective to the British Isles from ORD. While ORD-DUB/MAN/GLA/EDI/BHX are certainly potential markets for the carrier post-merger, the 757 will not be the sea-change it was at EWR.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
some shorter, less-competitive IAD markets with 752 aircraft.

Again, CO's 752 is somewhat limited here as well. The British Isles remain in play, plus LIS/MAD/OSL are candidates.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14233 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):
It's likely CO would have gone broke with too much excess capacity during the leaner years post-9/11. It was a conservative decision, but one that led to the sustainability of the carrier. The aircraft financing game is a tricky one, and you really can't fly planes you can't afford. With that said, CO's only widebody cancellations were of 10 767s in 2001/02 and the handful of 777s somewhat recently. Most order changes have been deferrals.

I thought CO was doing really well in the late 1990s when they were buying these planes? Financing new planes seemed like something they were more capable of at the time compared to other carriers.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):
I also would disagree with the strategy of dismantling CO's 10pm Europe bank and shipping it to ORD/IAD.

IAD has got the room to expand. EWR does not. It would make sense to do as per what the CEO says: move larger aircraft up to EWR which frees up other aircraft for international expansion and reduces conjestion (likely ORD and IAD.)



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2728 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14197 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):
I hope so. CO's EWR growth strategy has been rather conservative in recent years.

Is this a problem? CO's EWR hub is almost fully built out to Europe. Any future growth to Europe will likely be beefing up to *A hubs. I don't see much Eastern Europe expansion coming for CO, the real additions will be to Asia/Africa with the 787, IMO.

I disagree. While there may be limitations in operational growth at EWR there are numerous markets that CO has not considered due to the lack of an aircraft like the 763ER as well as a shortage of 762ER and 764ER aircraft. Personally, I'd rather see the 763ERs listed in my last post considered for new EWR service to: PRG, VIE, WAW. DME, VCE, IST, HEL, BUD, NCE, OTP, ZAG, STR, etc. Some of these markets can make sense and "slots"/gates would have to come from some creative consolidation of services, aircraft towing off and back on the gates , etc.


User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14102 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 25):

I may have missed something but the 744s have over 350 seats......and UA has 6 sitting in VCV.



yep.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14105 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 28):
I disagree. While there may be limitations in operational growth at EWR there are numerous markets that CO has not considered due to the lack of an aircraft like the 763ER as well as a shortage of 762ER and 764ER aircraft. Personally, I'd rather see the 763ERs listed in my last post considered for new EWR service to: PRG, VIE, WAW. DME, VCE, IST, HEL, BUD, NCE, OTP, ZAG, STR, etc. Some of these markets can make sense and "slots"/gates would have to come from some creative consolidation of services, aircraft towing off and back on the gates , etc.

Check. CO needs to diversify it's in the NYC market. DL covers more ground out of JFK than CO does internationally and why? CO has had the lack of aircraft do it the last 5-10 years. You can only stretch the legs of the 757 so far.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):
It's no secret that business travelers prefer flexibility in schedules, and with multiple departures to most destinations, CO can offer the all-important NYC traveler more options than other carriers. I

UA/CO can dictate what they feel is right and their customer loyalty base will likely follow. If they shave a few frequencies off of say CLT to 4 320s or go from 2x 757 to 1 daily 767 to GLA, the business travelers will deal. Besides, if they are flying out of EWR where else are they going to go? They are at UA's mercy if they want nonstop flights.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13857 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 30):

UA/CO can dictate what they feel is right and their customer loyalty base will likely follow.

Unfortunately I think this is true... to an extent. CO's greater frequencies ex-EWR give it a competitive advantage over carriers like AA and DL, who largely operate single-daily service to most transatlantic destinations outside of LHR. Taking this away and replacing with a single 767 flight not only reduces capacity but also strips a potential differentiating factor that is a driver of business to the airline. I'm not saying it won't happen, but there is an economic benefit to operating a second transatlantic bank that the new carrier will consider.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 27):
I thought CO was doing really well in the late 1990s when they were buying these planes? Financing new planes seemed like something they were more capable of at the time compared to other carriers.

CO purchased or leased over 100 new 737/757/767/777 aircraft in this time and built in a fairly strong rate of annual growth from about 1996-2002, but in 1998/99 projected the DC-10 to remain in service until 2004. After 9/11, the DC-10s were immediately grounded and 10 767 orders were canceled shortly thereafter, which was probably a prudent decision at the time. Any orders that would have been financed during the late 1990s halcyon days in the airline industry would have been fulfilled by 2005 or so, which would have likely been too early. CO is still feeling the effects from the immediate 9/11-related pulldown of widebody capacity, and will only fully overcome it once the 787 orders begin to roll in and the carrier can again plan longer term rates of rational growth fueled by new widebody deliveries.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 28):
Personally, I'd rather see the 763ERs listed in my last post considered for new EWR service to: PRG, VIE, WAW. DME, VCE, IST, HEL, BUD, NCE, OTP, ZAG, STR, etc.

I think IST, WAW, DME, VIE are realistic, in that order, given Star Alliance ties. PRG, VCE, HEL, BUD, and NCE are probably on the radar, but less of a priority due to their strong affiliations with SkyTeam and OW. I'm not sure if we'll see OTP, ZAG, or STR, though. I still believe the major growth will be in Asia and Africa. DXB, BLR, ICN, LOS, JNB, HND, KIX, plus an additional HKG are distinct possibilities.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2728 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13884 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 29):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 25):

I may have missed something but the 744s have over 350 seats......and UA has 6 sitting in VCV.

for some reason, I don't think CO/UA will be operating the 744 on EWR: EUB, EDI, MAD, MAN, OSL, SNN. AMS maybe, but not into a SkyTeam hub.

Now, maybe some of those 744s could be operated between to European/Asian markets to free 772ERs and 767s. How about this for 6 aircraft? Aircraft can swap out in NRT with other UA 744s.

Six aircraft with lots of maintenance opportunities at EWR, IAH and GRU. These are current flights.
IAH 1050 NRT 1420-1635 EWR 1630-2200 GRU 0850-2110 EWR 0600
EWR 1100 NRT 1355-1555 IAH 1350-2100 GRU 0850- 2110 IAH 0510

The 744 is probably too big for EWR-GRU, but the departure out of EWR to NRT is too early to arrive from Europe. The IAH-SA flight could operate to EZE instead, but it would make sense to have 744s at one SA airport.

[Edited 2010-08-17 23:17:34]

25 CODC10 : CO9 EWR-NRT is often operated by the inbound CO91 TLV-EWR, which arrives EWR around 4:45am. I think a 744 on at least one EWR-TLV is a no-brainer, so
26 CALPSAFltSkeds : That's a great idea. hadn't thought of TLV. Don't think India would work with a 744. EZE may make more sense than GRU. How about this pattern? Pretty
27 TOMMY767 : The 744 would be good for EWR-Tel Aviv, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, London/Heathrow and maybe Rome during peak season. Who the hell knows what UA will
28 Transpac787 : EWR-TXL is not the longest TATL 757 route that's ever been operated, not by a long shot. Although, the RR motors do put the CO ships at a significant
29 jfr : As I recall, it wasn't too may years ago that UA was flying double-daiies to Seoul.
30 daron4000 : UA still flies double daily to ICN. 1x747 to SFO and 1x777 to NRT.
31 tom355uk : The reason many people from the Midlands head to LHR is the extortionate prices CO charge from BHX. Example in point: Dep 16/12/10 Return 20/12/10 -
32 usairways85 : You also have to take into consideration the different TA strategies between CO and UA. CO has a far reach across much of Europe with a large number o
33 Post contains images kgaiflyer : I ran some mileages through the databases over on 'Landings.com' for my own information -- all unofficial. For the 757 routes mentioned in this threa
34 usairways85 : Theoretically. The winds probably don't affect ATL-BSB as much as a TA route.
35 Transpac787 : Yes, and they previously ran ATL-REC which is even longer - in the 4300mi ballpark. DTW-FRA and CVG-AMS were both operated for quite some time. DTW-F
36 CODC10 : This is the point. CO is not in the business of depressing fares in a given market. Since they are the only game in town at BHX, the convenience fact
37 BD338 : I tried your example once of taking the coach from LHR-BHX, allowed myself 3 hours connecting time in LHR from flight to bus, and the cluster that LH
38 SonomaFlyer : Growth opportunities at EWR are constrained by slots/congestion. Correct me if I'm wrong but ORD has significant delay issues of its own. IAD would be
39 STT757 : How so, CO serves more international destinations and handles significantly more international passengers than DL from JFK. CO handled 7.5 million in
40 United1 : Quite a bit of ORDs delay issues have been solved with the new northern runway coming online...on a 12 month rolling basis ORD is operating 77.81% of
41 CODC10 : Missed that one... your assertion is patently false. CO offers more service to India, South America, Latin America, Asia, and most of Europe than DL
42 United787 : Partly strategy and partly geographies of the their hubs. 1. UA has first class cabins which don't work well with seconday European markets. I am gue
43 TOMMY767 : Many are to the UK and Scandinavia though. CO needs to move further east and announcing Cairo was a big step but they could rival DL if they seeked t
44 iainbhx : I must admit I've never considered the coach/bus BHX-LHR for flights. I found that the train and HEx worked for me. However, most of the time I fly v
45 STT757 : Do they somehow not count as International destinations though?.. CO serves Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Delhi, Mumbai all nonstop from EWR yet they
46 Post contains images panamair : DL does fly to more destinations nonstop across the Atlantic from JFK than CO does from EWR... ...32 vs 29 What he was probably trying to get at was
47 g2scandinavia : The Midwest is the top priority for future US expansion from OSL. This strategy does also include a possible service to DTW with Delta and AA to ORD.
48 TOMMY767 : Exactly what I was getting at.
49 STT757 : DL also has less daily frequency of service.
50 Post contains images 2travel2know2 : Could NGO be an option? Like BFS? IMHO, BFS summer only and 4-5 x week max. if lucky. Wintertime, BHX may support ORD flights only 1-2 weeks before X
51 OA412 : Of course they do. DL has two large East Coast US-Europe hubs through which to funnel traffic, CO has just one. In fact, EWR is really CO's only real
52 Post contains images TOMMY767 : Oh god! That will be the day
53 Cubsrule : One interesting option with some of these might be to move the second frequency to IAD rather than ORD. Some of these markets (e.g. MAD, DUB) aren't
54 OA412 : That's exactly what I suspect we will see. Extra frequencies out of IAD, to spread the wealth around and to ease up on crowding at EWR.
55 TOMMY767 : I'd also like to see additional UA 757s added on mid to long range routes out of EWR that are only on 738s: PHX/SEA/DEN/PDX/SFO etc.
56 STT757 : Only 738s?.. According to CO.com (current schedules) PHX 2 daily 737-900ERs + 1 737-800 SEA 2 737-900ERs, 2 757-300s + 1 737-800 PDX 1 daily 737-900E
57 CODC10 : Exactly what he was getting at? TOMMY767 specifically referred to international diversity, which is not limited solely to the Atlantic. What of CO's
58 TOMMY767 : For a while there were ridiculous amount of 738 frequencies. I think it was 2007 or something when EWR-SFO on CO was 7x 738 no 757s. I would think th
59 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Oh G@D if they don't do enough of that already! Flight yesterday out of EWR had a 43 minute taxi time. While passing the ballpark pad, there had to h
60 STT757 : That would be a dramatic reduction in capacity, 2 757-200s is nearly the same capacity as a UAL 744.
61 TOMMY767 : Yeah it's ridiculous. That's why THANK GOD for this merger so EWR can be relieved a bit. CLE was kept around as a EWR "reliever" hub but in recent ti
62 kgaiflyer : According to information in the "Mexicana A319 Seized in YYC" thread, the following MX planes have been returned to their lessors: Leaving MX fleet: 1
63 airzim : Sorry to mess up your plans, but did you ever stop to think that the congestion at EWR was deliberate? Gumming up the works, crowded taxiways, limite
64 STT757 : *ding*ding*ding We have a winner, not just the slots but CO has done a great job of grabbing almost all available gates at EWR. CO right now is opera
65 kgaiflyer : Interesting idea. I assume you mean this is done with the collusion with the NJNY Port Authority who own the land on which the airport is built? And
66 airzim : The constraints are already in place and the process of consolidation has taken place for at least the last 10-15 years. CO has successfully expanded
67 usairways85 : They have also benefited from the strategies of other legacies to back away from EWR. AA and UA both dropped LHR long before CO had access, AA cut SJ
68 kgaiflyer : Sometimes deliberation and 'supply reacting to demand' look alike. But I'm not sure EWR is 'deliberately' following anyone's Economics textbook. We'l
69 airzim : You can believe what you want, but I can tell you this is very deliberate. Plus the overlap between UA and CO at EWR is minimal. The divesture will b
70 Post contains images TOMMY767 : Isn't that the WHOLE point of free market competition? CO might be in bed with PANYNJ but they have no right to basically own EWR. It's right for peo
71 STT757 : For us the consumer it sucks, which is why I'm finding myself heading to JFK and PHL more and more lately. Compare the trans-con fares for EWR and JF
72 kgaiflyer : I guess for those of us who have been using EWR since it was a hub for People Express airlines and who have watched it grow incrementally over the de
73 airzim : You're ignoring the point of my post. I'm sorry you don't seem to get it. Yes there's a free market and yes CO controls lots of real estate at EWR, a
74 TOMMY767 : That's a bit of a tough motto when you compare that to other major hubs for one airline of similar sizes that have a diversity of air carriers with n
75 cslusarc : I'd expect a major international expansion push in 2012 once the new UA has a single Operating Certificate. It would be smart for the new UA to deploy
76 CALPSAFltSkeds : EWR is part of a three airport system for the NYC area. EWR is a major player, but passengers can go to JFK or LGA to avoid CO if they want. Just lik
77 jfr : Double dailies from ORD.
78 kgaiflyer : But CO already flies to these locations from EWR. Actually, this thread does talk about new 752 service from ORD. Could it be possible that when you
79 cslusarc : Thanks for catching that goof up. I did mean ORD.
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 & CO To Merge! #3 posted Wed May 5 2010 23:26:35 by SA7700
UA & CO To Merge! #2 posted Mon May 3 2010 12:24:13 by SA7700
UA & CO to Merge! posted Mon May 3 2010 02:56:01 by UA191
United To Launch ORD To DLH/AVL & DEN To MAF posted Sat Sep 19 2009 17:19:49 by UnitedTristar
UA Response To AA ORD Buildup posted Thu Sep 17 2009 16:55:30 by NoMoreRJs
CO To Relocate ORD Gates posted Fri May 15 2009 15:10:45 by CAL
Oasis Hong Kong To Launch ORD posted Wed Jan 10 2007 21:58:25 by Continental123
UA (Ted) To Offer ORD-SJD; ORD-PBI posted Wed Aug 31 2005 22:47:37 by BigGSFO
Tokyo To ARN And MAN; NGO & KIX To LHR posted Sat May 22 2004 10:11:33 by Pe@rson
CO To Launch LTN-EWR And Reduce Capacity At LGW. posted Wed Feb 25 2004 22:12:21 by Gilesdavies