CO767FA
Topic Author
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:45 am

CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:14 am

It appears CO isn't going to let the China route slip into UA's hands easily:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/443866.pdf
 
COEI2007
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:33 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 am

It makes sense. UA already has PVG service ex ORD and SFO!!!! Give it to CO!!!!
 
pdxcof9
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:27 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 am

Yeah give it to a different airline. United already serves Shanghai!!!  biting   frown   hissyfit   irked   mad   yell 

Sorry got overexcited with the smilies.
Flown:733,4,7,8,752,763,TU3,CRJ,7,EM2,ER3,4,318,19,346,M80,90 Worked:CRJ,7,9,EM2,ER4,733,5,7,8,9,752,3,318,9
 
hugo
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:28 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:18 am

Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.
 
ord
Posts: 1354
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting Hugo (Reply 3):
Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

Poor service standards? I like Continental, but give me United's Economy Plus any day of the week. The extra legroom makes a huge difference.
 
COEI2007
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:33 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:29 am

Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:32 am

Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger idea 
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
rwsea
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:34 am

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 5):
Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is hilarious. You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it. The DC area currently has no service to China at all.

IAD-PEK made the most sense based on the DOT's criteria, and the DOT won't change its ruling. These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:36 am

I highly doubt that the DOT will reverse its decision. If for no other reason than to save face. I thought CO would have recieved the service, but they just have to hope for next year.
It is what it is...
 
pdxcof9
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:27 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:38 am

who serves shanghai from nyc?
Flown:733,4,7,8,752,763,TU3,CRJ,7,EM2,ER3,4,318,19,346,M80,90 Worked:CRJ,7,9,EM2,ER4,733,5,7,8,9,752,3,318,9
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting Pdxcof9 (Reply 9):
who serves shanghai from nyc?

MU (China Eastern) serves them 2x weekly.
It is what it is...
 
GHOSTRIDER
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it. The DC area currently has no service to China at all.

IAD-PEK made the most sense based on the DOT's criteria, and the DOT won't change its ruling. These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.

 checkmark 
Exactly!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it.

China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Delta787
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 8:13 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:36 am

I feel the chances of the DOT reversing its decsision is pretty slim.
Fly Delta!
 
Iloveboeing
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 5):
Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, CO has a second daily flight to China, to HKG. You can't forget HKG.
 
rwsea
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about a service gap and increasing access of US citizens to China. Adding another carrier on a route that is already flown does not increase access to China for US citizens in the same way as opening an entirely new market to China.
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3730
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:01 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 15):
Doesn't matter. We're talking about a service gap and increasing access of US citizens to China. Adding another carrier on a route that is already flown does not increase access to China for US citizens in the same way as opening an entirely new market to China.

But, you can hardly argue that the existing service is all that good for US citizens. The route is flown 4 x weekly and is currently down to 2 x weekly through March. That is hardly enough for a market the size of NYC-PVG. The award should have gone to CO hands down. As they say in their objection, UA could have implemented IAD-PEK if they truly wanted to with their existing US-China frequencies. This award has only succeeded in making an already dominant carrier even more so in a very important, yet highly restricted market. Hardly a "win" for us consumers. I'm with Falcon here, this decision stinks of political considerations.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:09 am

Quoting OA412 (Reply 16):
But, you can hardly argue that the existing service is all that good for US citizens. The route is flown 4 x weekly and is currently down to 2 x weekly through March. That is hardly enough for a market the size of NYC-PVG.

Clearly it is if MU is only operating the flight 2x a week. Big populations have very little to do with how sucessful the route will be.
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:17 am

Lot of CO boosters in here...there is always a period after an award for comments and I cannot recall any instance of a reward being reversed as a result. The fact that the current NYC frequency has dropped to 2x weekly only enforces the fact that there is not that big of a local market..not that it needs even more service.

Yes...UA is a large player in China...yes CO and AA lined up a few years ago and aggressively lobbied the same federal agency against UAL getting a loan which might have kept UA out of Chapt 11 (or maybe not) ....with the anticipated hope UA would shut down and CO would score the LHR routes and AA the Pacific on the shutdown......being the great Texas carriers they were and the current administration. So UAL then hired Texas Oil Man Tilton and has not looked back.

geee....

What goes around just went around.
 
PVG
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:32 am

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 17):
Clearly it is if MU is only operating the flight 2x a week. Big populations have very little to do with how sucessful the route will be.

This has more to do with MU's inability to attract high fare business passengers who cover most of the costs on flights to/from China not with the actual demand between these 2 markets.

I think that they make a very convincing argument. How can the DOT justify 2 daily non-stop flights between PVG-ORD and not even one US Flag flight between NYC-PVG. It just doesn't add up. I think CO needs to get themselves a little "POLITIC", clearly their agressive nature isn't helping their position in DC.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:42 am

Quoting PVG" class=quote target=_blank>PVG (Reply 19):
I think that they make a very convincing argument. How can the DOT justify 2 daily non-stop flights between PVG-ORD and not even one US Flag flight between NYC-PVG. It just doesn't add up. I think CO needs to get themselves a little "POLITIC", clearly their agressive nature isn't helping their position in DC.

I definately had my money of CO. I do agree to a point with you on the ORD issue. Last I checked NYC was the 2nd largest market to China (behind LAX) and ORD lagged far behind. However ORD has more service to China. ORD does have better connections and a better geographic location. One thing I hate is despite the fact that LAX (by far) has the largest O&D market to China, no US carrier will take and interest in it (not even to HKG).
It is what it is...
 
GHOSTRIDER
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:45 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.

The fact is that NYC already has service to Shanghai, regardless if it's on a US carrier....
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:14 am

How many topics have there been about CO's attacks on the DOT for some of its decisions? Perhaps some of that venom was a part of the decision making process.

We'll never know.
 
PVG
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 20):
One thing I hate is despite the fact that LAX (by far) has the largest O&D market to China, no US carrier will take and interest in it (not even to HKG).

Agree, how can CX fill 3 flights a day, and yet, no US carrier takes a shot at competing with them. I think that it just shows how inferior the US carriers are service-wise and the poor perception of the US carriers in Asia that they don't even want to think about going against CX. The other thing that's odd about LAX is that despite the huge population in the surrounding areas, no one really calls it a hub? Every airline seems to serve the airport, but no-one calls it a hub/base? Why is that? That market would seem to beg for a home-town carrier. Maybe it has to do with the fact that there are so many smaller airports near-by that serve the market directly that it doesn't work economically.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:49 am

Quoting Hugo (Reply 3):
Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

I agree. UA already has a strong asian network, and CO has proven itself very well on its EWR-PEK and EWR-HKG flights. I feel this should have gone to either CO or NW (who had already proven their route pre 9/11) UA already has two north american cities to shanghai.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 6):
Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger idea

I don't think CO is looking for a merger... their business seems to be working pretty well.

Quoting Pdxcof9 (Reply 9):
who serves shanghai from nyc?

MU - China Eastern - 2x week with an A346... i think it used to be 4 or 5 times a week, but they recent cut it - right after the DOT announcement i believe.

Quoting Delta787 (Reply 13):
I feel the chances of the DOT reversing its decsision is pretty slim.

I'll agree, but if anyone can strong arm the bureaucracy.... it would be CO.

Quoting GhostRider (Reply 21):
The fact is that NYC already has service to Shanghai, regardless if it's on a US carrier....

2x week to new york really isn't much. Also, there is no north america-shanghai service on a skyteam airline, while one world has AA's service from ORD and star already has UA's service from ORD and SFO.

And NY is a larger market than DC.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
GHOSTRIDER
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:50 am

Quoting PVG (Reply 23):
The other thing that's odd about LAX is that despite the huge population in the surrounding areas, no one really calls it a hub?

What about AS, UA, and AA? AA is debateable, but AS and UA definitely call LAX a hub
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting PVG (Reply 23):
Agree, how can CX fill 3 flights a day, and yet, no US carrier takes a shot at competing with them. I think that it just shows how inferior the US carriers are service-wise and the poor perception of the US carriers in Asia that they don't even want to think about going against CX.

I agree. I can kind of understand why they wont try to serve mainland China from LAX simply because its already served (although there is plenty of room left) and they dont want to compete with CZ, MU, and CA. But Ive always thought that someone else could compete with CX (man how I wish UA would come back in and do it). I think that the US based carriers dont want to compete with CX because the service is better on CX. LAX has the largest O&D for China, but no one is really rushing to serve it on our side of the Pacific.
It is what it is...
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:48 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 26):
I agree. I can kind of understand why they wont try to serve mainland China from LAX simply because its already served (although there is plenty of room left) and they dont want to compete with CZ, MU, and CA. But Ive always thought that someone else could compete with CX (man how I wish UA would come back in and do it). I think that the US based carriers dont want to compete with CX because the service is better on CX. LAX has the largest O&D for China, but no one is really rushing to serve it on our side of the Pacific.

Aside from LAX and SFO, another west coast market that is overlooked by CZ, MU & CA as well as the U.S. flag carriers is SEA. With YVR just up the road with at least one of these as well as CX, SEA has as large a market to China as BOS or IAD/DCA yet they get NOTHING! They don't even appear to be on the radar scope for any of the U.S. flag carriers. As for CO and the EWR-PVG proposal, it should come fairly easily I would suspect in 2009 when the process is open to incumbent carriers. As much as I agree that CO had some heavier technical merit with this one over UA, I think the capitol city novelty won out and likewise I think that linking it to the worlds largest hub (ATL) next year will likewise win it for DL aside from getting another U.S. flag carrier into the China game. But where CO has as good a technical merit in this is getting such service into another NYC airport other than JFK.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
c680
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:50 pm

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
IAD-PEK made the most sense based on the DOT's criteria, and the DOT won't change its ruling. These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.

 checkmark 

CO has filed their objection to better position themselves in the next round.
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
ThePalauan
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:56 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:54 pm

I wonder what called for the DOT not to award a backup carrier the China authority.  scratchchin 

Another thing that strikes me is the 9th footnote about how similar IAD-PEK and DET-PVG are in that both flights could be operated simply by changing the routing. If it cites Northwest on that note but not United, maybe something's not right there...  banghead 
You can take the boy out of the island, but not the island out of the boy!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 27):
I think the capitol city novelty won out and likewise I think that linking it to the worlds largest hub (ATL) next year will likewise win it for DL aside from getting another U.S. flag carrier into the China game.

I agree. ATL's market to China is practically nil, but the "Worlds largest hub" bit coupled with the fact that DL has no service to China could very well be what brings them the route. It seems that when an American carrier want to service China, they will go for the connecting traffic rather than the local. If that werent the case then the only markets that would have service to China would be LAX, NYC (airports), and SFO.
It is what it is...
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:12 pm

Quoting Hugo (Reply 3):
The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

Amen to that...

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 6):
Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger

 irked 

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
The DC area currently has no service to China at all.

So let's get CO to restart their spurned IAD hub.... mischievous 

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.

back in the 50's-70's, the CAB overturned the Pacific Route Award several times before giving it to ALL applicants...So instead of PA and NW having the monopoly, UA, CO, WA, and even NorthEAST had the award given to them, although Northeast lost its award due to a) merging with DL and B) not having anything ready in time by the award's startup deadline.
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
rwsea
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:13 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 16):
But, you can hardly argue that the existing service is all that good for US citizens. The route is flown 4 x weekly and is currently down to 2 x weekly through March.

New York has multiple daily flights to China between PEK, HKG, and PVG. The Washington area has zero. I would consider a limited weekly frequency to be better than the 0x weekly frequency that DC currently has.

And also, with limited frequencies available to China, it makes sense to fly the biggest planes possible. UA wins in that department too.
 
COewrAAtysAZ
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:25 pm

Quoting ORD" class=quote target=_blank>ORD (Reply 4):
Poor service standards? I like Continental, but give me United's Economy Plus any day of the week. The extra legroom makes a huge difference.

CO's aircraft have almost the exact amount of legroom. Mentioning amenities, though, try going on UA's 747s that have NO PTVs, compared to CO's 777s. Trust me, even 7 hours on CO's 757s transatlantic are hard. That's why it's good they will be putting in the PTVs in the future on those 757's.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 6):
Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger

Yea... Beauty and the Beast make a great marriage.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 30):
I agree. ATL's market to China is practically nil, but the "Worlds largest hub" bit coupled with the fact that DL has no service to China could very well be what brings them the route. It seems that when an American carrier want to service China, they will go for the connecting traffic rather than the local. If that werent the case then the only markets that would have service to China would be LAX, NYC (airports), and SFO.

The argument that ATL is the "world's largest hub" just makes no sense. It doesn't help the O&D situation which would be nonexistant, AND to make it a connection city is just plain dumb. By the time you get to ATL, you would have flown over SFO, DTW, ORD, and EWR depending on how the flight goes. It is way out of the way unless you are connecting to Florida.

CO's response says it best on page 8. There is no difference between NW's one-stop Tokyo service being changed to nonstop service and UA's IAD-ORD-PEK one-stop service. They could easily reroute that.
Continental Airlines: Trabajar con empe�?��?�±o, Volar con Pasi�?��?�³n
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4407
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:52 pm

CO isn't the only airline to object; NW has also. Meanwhile the DOT has rejected UA's request for pendente lite authority, i.e. the right to commence service immediately before the route award is final. This does give a very slight hope to the objectors; but, as others have said, a different decision is unlikely.

For those who read the DOT dockets regularly, am I the only one annoyed by all those private letters of support that clutter up the case and make finding a particular pleading difficult? The airlines have shown that any of them can muster thousands of letters of support, which in my mind makes them all irrelevant. I hope the DOT asks the "Amen Chorus" to desist. I think TWA's DCA-LAX win started all this, when the DOT specifically mentioned all the letters of support as one reason for the award; what a mistake.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Delta787 (Reply 13):
I feel the chances of the DOT reversing its decsision is pretty slim.

Sad, but true. So much for competition.

 checkmark 

Quoting PVG" class=quote target=_blank>PVG (Reply 19):
This has more to do with MU's inability to attract high fare business passengers who cover most of the costs on flights to/from China not with the actual demand between these 2 markets.



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 30):
It seems that when an American carrier want to service China, they will go for the connecting traffic rather than the local.

And Continental is able to do both from EWR. They've got the massive O&D feed from the NYC market, as well as a large bank of connections through their hub at EWR. I highly doubt that ATL gets nonstop PVG service from a US carrier before New York.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting Cba (Reply 35):
And Continental is able to do both from EWR. They've got the massive O&D feed from the NYC market, as well as a large bank of connections through their hub at EWR.

Indeed. This is why I felt sure they would get the route. I would have put money on it. I love UA, but I dont think giving them the route was the right decision. That being said, I really dont think the DOT should reverse their ruling because it would set a bad precident. They could have moved one of their frequencies to IAD from ORD or SFO, however I dont think they would ever do that simply because the markets are bigger and the airports are better for service to China. Moving the SFO frequency to IAD would be like flying SFO-FCO instead of IAD-FCO. UA would have been foolish to move one of its frequncies from ORD or SFO to IAD.

I disagree with the DOT, but I dont think they should reverse their decision.
It is what it is...
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:46 am

Quote:
Continental Airlines isn't giving up on China. [/quote

http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in...ness-5/1169791930108280.xml&coll=1

[quote]"The department's decision to award even more frequencies to United rather than injecting effective new competition in the U.S. Shanghai market flies in the face of fundamental principle that has guided the department's decision for decades: additional competition," Continental wrote.



Quote:
"The tentative decision to select United is not only unexplainable but inexplicable unless external factors not relevant to this proceeding influenced the department," Continental wrote.

The company's comment referred to speculation among industry observers that Continental was being punished by the DOT for its vehement objections to an unrelated issue regarding foreign ownership of U.S. airlines.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
UNITED777ORD
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 12:54 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:05 am

Wipe your tears Continental. It serves you right when you were one of the airlines against UAL when they were trying to get a govt. loan. The people at Continental seem to forget that their carrier has been in bankruptcy twice unlike UAL which has been in bankruptcy only once. United provided the DOT with logical reasons why they deserve to fly between IAD-PVG and I wish them the best.

-United777ORD-
 
kiwiandrew

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 38):
United provided the DOT with logical reasons why they deserve to fly between IAD-PVG and I wish them the best.

and yet inexplicably they were awarded IAD-BJS instead Big grin
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:51 am

In related news, UA had requested permission to begin marketing/sale of tickets on the IAD-PEK route. In making their request UA had clearly indicated that they would protect passengers (and cargo shippers) in case the award of the frequencies to UA was reversed.

DOT has denied this UA petition - so UA will have to wait this the final order.
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 5):
UA has PVG service already

UA can argue that China Eastern now flies New York-Shanghai so Continental doesn't need to fly this route
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 38):
Wipe your tears Continental. It serves you right when you were one of the airlines against UAL when they were trying to get a govt. loan.

As long as your holding a grudge, dont forget what UA did to CO at DEN with TORQUE. It was one of the most shady marketing tactics in Airline history.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965217,00.html
It is what it is...
 
AC787
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:25 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting ThePalauan (Reply 29):
9th footnote about how similar IAD-PEK and DET-PVG are in that both flights could be operated simply by changing the routing. If it cites Northwest on that note but not United, maybe something's not right there..



Quoting Coewraatysaz (Reply 33):
There is no difference between NW's one-stop Tokyo service being changed to nonstop service and UA's IAD-ORD-PEK one-stop service. They could easily reroute that.

NW flights to china and united's flights are completley different, I don't understand the comparision. United flies direct from the US and simply adds the flight code from other us cities to ord and then on to china whereas northwest connects passengers through japan when they could do the flight nonstop(i think). This comparision makes no sense.
 
BN727
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:31 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:44 am

Funny how CO didn't seem to want it until UA did.......Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
 
COewrAAtysAZ
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:59 am

Quoting AC787 (Reply 43):
NW flights to china and united's flights are completley different, I don't understand the comparision. United flies direct from the US and simply adds the flight code from other us cities to ord and then on to china whereas northwest connects passengers through japan when they could do the flight nonstop(i think). This comparision makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if you look past whether the stopover city is international or domestic. The flight still stops somewhere else. UA has the option of allocating one of their current allowances to nonstop service from IAD instead of stopover in ORD. There is no difference... look past the fact that one stops in another country and another in a domestic city.

Quoting BN727 (Reply 44):
Funny how CO didn't seem to want it until UA did.......Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

What is that based on? CO has obviously had plans to expand into Asia for many years, hence one of the reasons they ordered the 777s years ago.
Continental Airlines: Trabajar con empe�?��?�±o, Volar con Pasi�?��?�³n
 
CO767FA
Topic Author
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:45 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting United777ORD (Reply 38):
Wipe your tears Continental. It serves you right when you were one of the airlines against UAL when they were trying to get a govt. loan. The people at Continental seem to forget that their carrier has been in bankruptcy twice unlike UAL which has been in bankruptcy only once. United provided the DOT with logical reasons why they deserve to fly between IAD-PVG and I wish them the best.

-United777ORD-

Your post typifies the arrogance that is often associated with UA (luckily it doesn't represent everyone at UA).

I'm amazed at how you try to nullify United's bankruptcy by stating that CO has been there twice (duh!); but you fail to remember United's trip was the largest and longest of any airline. It also seems to be slipping your memory that since their trip in and out of Bankruptcy court, United is still unprofitable for any extended period of time. Given the length and size of the bankruptcy you'd think they'd be kicking every-ones tail on the P/L statement.
 
CO767FA
Topic Author
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:45 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting BN727 (Reply 44):
Funny how CO didn't seem to want it until UA did.......Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Statements like this are an example of posts that make us go........hmmmm  scratchchin 

Are you stating that CO didn't want the China route until UA did? CO had been actively seeking the route shortly after it was awarded EWR-PEK!
 
SeeTheWorld
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:46 am

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away

It is not irrelevant. It is less relevant, but not irrelevant. Connecting the two largest financial capitals is not the one-and-only criteria for the DOT. You are mis-informed. Both CO and UA had strong cases, and a case could be made for either. To suggest this was purely political is naive at best and uninformed at worse. Read the Order and stop complaining.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: CO Objects To DOT Ruling

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 48):
Both CO and UA had strong cases, and a case could be made for either. To suggest this was purely political is naive at best and uninformed at worse.

I agree whole-heartedly. My personal opinion was that CO should have gotten it, but Im not the DOT. They both had strong cases. Even though I thought CO should have gotten the route, I dont really think that it was political.
It is what it is...