point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2310 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7801 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 7): and instead LH could use their resources to launch IAH-MUC.
My vote goes to DEN-MUC. This flight did well once before for a very short time that it flown..... then the downturn around 2008 hit, and there went the flight. DEN-MUC went out fairly well packed, however, from what seemed to be said between the lines by LH officials for the discontinuation is that the MUC flight cannibalization the premium off FRA-DEN, so there went the flight. Maybe there are a few more premium butts this time around.
However, I know that there are a lot of premium butts out of IAH, so if not DEN, then that would probably be good as any destination.
At any rate, IAD has some sort of n/s to MUC (UA) during the off-season, correct?
IrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1963 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7737 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
As I said, ultimately does not matter who the equipment is as the JV is blind to it.
UA will operate IAD-MUC by itself for a period as the market will drop from double daily, to only a single flight.
Well, in that case we're arguing semantics here, but the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate what is happening to the LUFTHANSA operated flight to MUC. Metal neutrality is not a relevant topic here because people are curious to know why Lufthansa is not flying IADMUC for the winter, if indeed that is the case, as there are still stark differences between UA and LH when it comes to the TATL in-flight experience. And, as you yourself pointed out, regardless of who is flying the route, it represents a decline in capacity by half.
Moreover, people would like to know where LH will be sending the A333 bird for that period. Metal neutrality doesn't contribute to that explanation.
next flights: msp-iah-dal, dfw-ord-msp, msp-ord-lax-las, las-ord-msp
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7492 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10): Now with JVs airlines can schedule as one, and need not worry about maintaining physical metal presence in all markets.
That's in theory, if I book LHR-JFK on ba.com, I am VERY careful that I don't end up flying on AA metal. Let's not pretend there's no difference to the paying customer, a JV is not seamless service between partners.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 18): Surprised to see JFK-MUC drop down to 5x during the winter.
Europe is going through the same creative destruction the US went through about 10 years ago, and several hubs will likely not last. I'm not saying MUC is necessarily one of them, but there are two more LH* hubs within 230 miles of MUC, and not many would have guessed at the time that great facilities like PIT would have been dehubbed altogether.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7471 posts, RR: 11 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 8): My vote goes to DEN-MUC. This flight did well once before for a very short time that it flown.....
I said on the UA 787 thread that my vote for second route following DEN-NRT is DEN-MUC because the 787 is a better aircraft for this route than the A340.
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 12): That's in theory, if I book LHR-JFK on ba.com, I am VERY careful that I don't end up flying on AA metal. Let's not pretend there's no difference to the paying customer, a JV is not seamless service between partners.
But there's a far greater product chasm between BA and AA, than there is between LH and UA.