westgate
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:17 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:58 pm

I think the main reason for the lack of any other long-haul service apart from Condor is that a daily 744 on BA to LHR is already a very strong and very established offering to a very large European hub with more than enough connecting options. Not to mention it's to London which will have far more O/D traffic than FRA or AMS and even CDG. It is relatively similar to the situation in DTW where I believe that due to LH developing such a large presence there since BA left, that is what ultimately keeps BA from returning. Let's say KL started flights with a 789 AMS-PHX, BA could always price dump their extra capacity to keep them out.

I think the fact that PHX has had daily 744 service on BA to LHR for so long is actually quite impressive. The 744's were already there the last time I was in PHX in early 2005. What other US cities of similar size/location/demand have enjoyed such service ? Obviously BA got in a long time ago and cornered the market for themselves, the fact that HP then merged with US which then merged with AA and therefore turned PHX into a One World hub has only strengthened their presence. If BA hadn't been as successfully there so long ago and utilised a 744 so early on then MAYBE there would be room for another significant competitor now, if for example they had always been flying 763's and recently switched to a 788.

By the way, does anyone know the exact history of BA on the PHX-LHR route ? When did it start, what equipment was initially used and when did they start deploying the 744 ???
Last edited by westgate on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
phxsanslcpdx
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:10 pm

JBusworth wrote:
If AA/OW are actually interested I n making ALL of there hubs large and feasible, I'm sure PHX could have flights to Tokyo and Hong Kong at least, but thats not gonna happen any time time


AA seems focused on making all their hubs feasible (profitable), with little interest in meeting anyone's arbitrary definition of large. Sure, they could lose money flying PHX-HKG, but AA management seems to understand that their job is to turn a profit, not to impress you.

FlyingColours wrote:
I wonder had US & AA not merged would PHX have seen expansion as a long haul hub?


"Long haul hub" to me implies connecting many passengers long haul-to-long haul, like some major hubs in Europe and the Middle East. With that interpretation, I think MIA is likely the only US airport that qualifies now; and no, PHX never had any realistic shot at joining that rank.

But without the merger, maybe PHX would have seen a bit more long haul flying by now. If US had stayed in the Star Alliance, FRA on Lufthansa might be flying now. If they'd ended up in SkyTeam, there's some chance that there would be a nonstop to CDG or AMS. If the merger dance had worked out differently and US & NW had partnered up, I guess there's a chance there might have been a PHX-NRT flight for a while at least, but I think the forces contributing to the drawdown of the NRT hub would have still occurred, and I think any possible PHX-NRT would have already been canceled by now.
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:19 pm

westgate wrote:
By the way, does anyone know the exact history of BA on the PHX-LHR route ? When did it start, what equipment was initially used and when did they start deploying the 744 ???


It started on July 1, 1996 with the DC10 and it was originally LHR-PHX-SAN. At some point when the economy bottomed out in 2008/2009 it went to 6x weekly and on the 77E, but it's been the 744 again now for a while.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:26 pm

It would be interesting to see current stats on what airports travelers use to fly to the Grand Canyon. Back in 2003-2004, for the South Rim, PHX was used by 46.2% of visitors, followed by LAS at 36.1%. For the North Rim, LAS was used by 54.1% of visitors, followed by PHX at 22.3%. I wonder what the stats are now.
Yes, I wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD shirts. I am a real man.
 
skyharborshome
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:19 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:42 pm

Being a Phoenician it is obvious that the BA flight takes care of Europe and with WN, AA or DL you can get to LAX almost anytime of the day. Even when my Delta Connection flight gets cancelled, it is worth paying the money to hop over to LAX on AA or WN to make my Asia connection. Almost all of my friends love the BA flight when they go anywhere in Europe and the rest of us who prefer Asia jumps over from LAX, SFO or SEA. If you want KE, the connection you can make is to HNL on HA and then ride the 747-8 over to ICN. American is not growing here and a huge chunk of our traffic is WN and that is not going to feed many other long-haul routes. I wish I could see our terminals filled with international options. Unfortunately, we are simply not going to see that. I feel lucky that we get an A330 for half the year to ATL on DL! Now we have 330s to Hawaii and even CLT. For us, that is big news.
Fly CHD!
 
BAINY3
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:05 pm

PHX Flyer wrote:
irelayer wrote:
Where is that feed coming from? LAS? TUS? ABQ? El Paso? Fairly limited range of options there.

Actually, the entire portion of Southern California where people find it more convenient to connect through Phoenix than drive to LAX ...

Danny49er1997 wrote:
As someone who lives in the Phoenix area (Cave Creek), yes it is not the most touristy destination especially for anyone outside the US, Sky Harbor is a good hub airport that should have at least a few more international routes! Scottsdale is a popular tourist attraction!


I think there is sufficient demand, else Condor would not have launched the new summer route from FRA. I doubt that Germans come here for Scottsdale. But it's a good gateway to tour the parks in the southern Arizona, as well as Sedona and up north to the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley. I think, a lot of folks may opt for open-jaw itineraries with Phoenix and Las Vegas as start or end points.

Considering Condor's flight is a summer seasonal, when the heat in Phoenix is oppressive, I think the flight is marketed more toward Phoenix residents looking for a cheaper option to Europe. Germans aren't going to want to visit PHX when it's 105F/40C. Lots of newer Condor destinations are largely marketed to a U.S. point-of-sale (MSP, for example).
 
cm642
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:16 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:46 pm

Let's just put it this way, until Arizona leaders (politicians) do a better job of attracting companies from Asian, European, and other foreign markets to set up business in the Valley the demand really won't be there. If you've watched any of the city council meetings on youtube or read any of the articles published with interviews of Deborah Ostreicher, numerous times they've stated that they have met with airline officials from numerous countries and that the answer is basically all the same. If an airline can't fill its premium cabin aka "first" and "business" or just "business" depending on the cabin arrangement airline route planners won't even consider the route. They don't really go by leisure travelers because through advertising and marketing they can easily fill their economy cabins, however the bulk of the flights revenue comes from those premium passengers. Let's not forget at the end of the day it's all about turning a profit. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see more long haul flying from PHX, but until we can create the demand for it and bring more foreign investment and business into the Valley, it's just not a feasible reality.

"What is keeping Phoenix from landing more international flights"
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/05/13/what-is-keeping-phoenix-from-landing-more.html
 
bagoldex
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:52 pm

jfk777 wrote:
bagoldex wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
IF BA can make PHX work with a 744 with a Premium configuration( including 14 First seats) another airline with a large fortress European hub should be able to make something work with a 787, A330 or 772ER with a more Y seats and only 30 to 40 J class seats. As someone observed PHX has a population of 5 million people.


BA actually uses the low-J(non-premium) 744 to Phoenix.


ALL BA 744 have 14 First Class seats including the low J with 52 seats and the 70 J and 86 J versions.


Yes, they do all have 14 F seats however they use the 52J-seat version for PHX which conveys that premium demand is comparatively low and they need more lift in the back of the bus.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:57 pm

cm642 wrote:
What is keeping Phoenix from landing more international flights?


Below are the top international destinations for Phoenix passengers and how many people fly to and from these place and Phoenix daily, according to Sky Harbor data:

London: 121.6
Paris: 47.9
Tokyo 36.3
Amsterdam: 34
Frankfurt: 34

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/05/13/what-is-keeping-phoenix-from-landing-more.html
 
westgate
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:17 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:06 pm

777PHX wrote:
westgate wrote:
By the way, does anyone know the exact history of BA on the PHX-LHR route ? When did it start, what equipment was initially used and when did they start deploying the 744 ???


It started on July 1, 1996 with the DC10 and it was originally LHR-PHX-SAN. At some point when the economy bottomed out in 2008/2009 it went to 6x weekly and on the 77E, but it's been the 744 again now for a while.


So there you go, 22 years of dedicated non-stop, almost always daily widebody flights to a major European hub on a legacy carrier, to a city that really doesn't have that much tourist draw from the European side and is in an awkward geographic position just down the road from LAX . . . so perhaps the question shouldn't be why doesn't it have more long haul routes, but why it ultimately has done so well for so long considering all the obvious weaknesses of the local market.
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm

Lets not forget, in addition to Condor IIRC BA will be upping its service to 10 weekly 747s. That is a huge jump in capacity overall.
FLYi
 
aviationjunky
Posts: 389
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:42 pm

I feel like PHX and LAS are both stuck in this weird middle-man situation where they are both located between LAX/SFO and DEN, where there is little consideration for nonstop international travel. Both cities have large populations with a need for international service, but it's a matter of most airlines are already flying into LAX or DEN, and just connecting to PHX and LAS. In the recent years, LAS has started receiving more international traffic, but it is still down quite a bit from before the resession.
LAS is Life
 
LupineChemist
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:03 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:44 pm

I've definitely wished I could connect in PHX from MAD. They have lots of connectivity to smaller cities in the West. I know I have had a few times that getting a flight to BFL would have been very convenient.
 
irelayer
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:44 pm

BAINY3 wrote:
PHX Flyer wrote:
irelayer wrote:
Where is that feed coming from? LAS? TUS? ABQ? El Paso? Fairly limited range of options there.

Actually, the entire portion of Southern California where people find it more convenient to connect through Phoenix than drive to LAX ...

Danny49er1997 wrote:
As someone who lives in the Phoenix area (Cave Creek), yes it is not the most touristy destination especially for anyone outside the US, Sky Harbor is a good hub airport that should have at least a few more international routes! Scottsdale is a popular tourist attraction!


I think there is sufficient demand, else Condor would not have launched the new summer route from FRA. I doubt that Germans come here for Scottsdale. But it's a good gateway to tour the parks in the southern Arizona, as well as Sedona and up north to the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley. I think, a lot of folks may opt for open-jaw itineraries with Phoenix and Las Vegas as start or end points.

Considering Condor's flight is a summer seasonal, when the heat in Phoenix is oppressive, I think the flight is marketed more toward Phoenix residents looking for a cheaper option to Europe. Germans aren't going to want to visit PHX when it's 105F/40C. Lots of newer Condor destinations are largely marketed to a U.S. point-of-sale (MSP, for example).


Good point. Also to the person who said the entire portion of SoCal where people can find it more convenient to connect through Phoenix than drive to LAX...that's pretty much Yuma and MAYBE PSP (even that's a stretch). PSP is connected to both LAX and PHX (on UA and AA respectively). So what else? I would rather drive to LA from almost anywhere than drive to Phoenix. Prescott?

I'll give you an example. The only time I ever found it convenient to go to PHX for anything was when UA was selling rock bottom hub-attacking fares ex-PHX to MAD, BCN, LHR, etc through EWR. Even then, I used RR points on SW to do a SAN-PHX R/T. Trust me, it was super inconvenient.

The reality is Phoenix and Tucson are in a desert oasis outside of which there is very little for hundreds of miles. To have a good connecting hub you have to have a sufficiently dense network of smaller cities in the immediate vicinity to support the feed and ideally some O/D demand (tourist, business, etc). Some hubs exist on a geographical basis, some exist because they are large O/D markets and some exist because of a combination of both. ORD is a great example of the third one. CLT is a great example of the first one. LAX is a great example of the middle one. PHX is a great example of none of those.

-IR
 
westgate
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:17 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:03 pm

flyPIT wrote:
Lets not forget, in addition to Condor IIRC BA will be upping its service to 10 weekly 747s. That is a huge jump in capacity overall.


The fact that BA can just up its capacity so quickly and easily due to the fact that it is already so well established in the market will certainly keep most other carriers from trying their luck in PHX, especially as it's a destination they would have little to no experience in.
 
gunnerman
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:21 pm

I've had a look at the loads on the BA289 flights from LHR to PHX for the next few days. Although they are not full, the premium cabins have sold well with the majority of seats filled. The cabins and seats are:
First (14)
Club World (52)
World Traveller Plus (36)
Traveller (235)
Total: 337 seats

From 27 March 2018, BA will start to add three flights a week for the summer season until 26 October 2018. These additional flights will also be operated by 744s with the same cabins and seats as the year-round flights.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2909
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:36 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
I feel like PHX and LAS are both stuck in this weird middle-man situation where they are both located between LAX/SFO and DEN, where there is little consideration for nonstop international travel. Both cities have large populations with a need for international service, but it's a matter of most airlines are already flying into LAX or DEN, and just connecting to PHX and LAS. In the recent years, LAS has started receiving more international traffic, but it is still down quite a bit from before the resession.


PHX yes, LAS no, not even close, sorry but you are so far off the mark there, to put it in perspective, 3.58 M international passengers came through LAS last year, LAS has multiple airlines from the UK, mainland Europe and Asia flying in to it, PHX, not so much. LAS has done a fantastic job of luring international airlines into the market, Mr Randy Walker did a great job of building LAS into the airport it is today, and in many ways helped Las Vegas as a whole grow into the destination it is today.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Phoenix area, but comparing the international traffic between PHX and LAS is not going to fly, the simple fact is that PHX does not have the attraction that LAS does for most of the world...

Now you are correct in that the position of PHX between LAX and DEN leaves it in a no win situation, PHX's market will be limited for the near term future.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:41 pm

FlyingColours wrote:
My options are either MAN-PHL-PHX or MAN-LHR-PHX, going with AA would be the better option but the connection at PHL is far too short so it looks like we will have to do BA from Heathrow (our last experience on a BA 747 left quite a lot to be desired - worst flight I'd ever had but I digress).


What about Virgin Atlantic / Delta Manchester - New York JFK - Phoenix or Manchester - Atlanta - Phoenix. That's another option. Virgin Atlantic and Delta are feeders for each other and make a perfect connection, and I bet the service is better than British Airways.
 
Kadish
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:36 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:48 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
IF BA can make PHX work with a 744 with a Premium configuration( including 14 First seats) another airline with a large fortress European hub should be able to make something work with a 787, A330 or 772ER with a more Y seats and only 30 to 40 J class seats. As someone observed PHX has a population of 5 million people.

AA has a large hub there so if all the ingredients are there and work in other cities why not Phoenix ? AA could feed flights from all over the southwest over PHX to Europe, connecting in DFW is not everything. Between DFW and LAX & SFO there is very limited European service via Denver, SLC and Las Vegas. All the people of Mexican decent in the southwest should make a flights to Madrid possible for AA or Iberia. AS much as LHR has to be the center of AA activities to Europe it is not everything. Not everything to Europe has to go through Philadelphia, it time for AA to spread the long haul wealth to the only hub that doesn't have any long hauls for AA.


Being of Mexican descent rarely ever means a person has any connection to Spain. What a weird comment.



Not weird enough, many people believe Mexico and Spain are the same...sad but real.
Anyway sounds great if they try n make work PHX-MAD
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:48 pm

irelayer wrote:
BAINY3 wrote:
PHX Flyer wrote:

I think there is sufficient demand, else Condor would not have launched the new summer route from FRA. I doubt that Germans come here for Scottsdale. But it's a good gateway to tour the parks in the southern Arizona, as well as Sedona and up north to the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley. I think, a lot of folks may opt for open-jaw itineraries with Phoenix and Las Vegas as start or end points.

Considering Condor's flight is a summer seasonal, when the heat in Phoenix is oppressive, I think the flight is marketed more toward Phoenix residents looking for a cheaper option to Europe. Germans aren't going to want to visit PHX when it's 105F/40C. Lots of newer Condor destinations are largely marketed to a U.S. point-of-sale (MSP, for example).


Good point. Also to the person who said the entire portion of SoCal where people can find it more convenient to connect through Phoenix than drive to LAX...that's pretty much Yuma and MAYBE PSP (even that's a stretch). PSP is connected to both LAX and PHX (on UA and AA respectively). So what else? I would rather drive to LA from almost anywhere than drive to Phoenix. Prescott?

I'll give you an example. The only time I ever found it convenient to go to PHX for anything was when UA was selling rock bottom hub-attacking fares ex-PHX to MAD, BCN, LHR, etc through EWR. Even then, I used RR points on SW to do a SAN-PHX R/T. Trust me, it was super inconvenient.

The reality is Phoenix and Tucson are in a desert oasis outside of which there is very little for hundreds of miles. To have a good connecting hub you have to have a sufficiently dense network of smaller cities in the immediate vicinity to support the feed and ideally some O/D demand (tourist, business, etc). Some hubs exist on a geographical basis, some exist because they are large O/D markets and some exist because of a combination of both. ORD is a great example of the third one. CLT is a great example of the first one. LAX is a great example of the middle one. PHX is a great example of none of those.

-IR


DEN isn't a "great" hub much more than PHX is, but it has been very successful. PHX is a bit worse geographically but not a lot. For whatever reasons Denver has seen more business growth.

About PHX connections, not sure why you are excluding onward markets like SNA, LGB, BUR, SMF, ONT, FAT, SJC, OAK, SBA, SBP,TUS. And the Hawaiian markets. It adds up to a good business for BA. Apparently more than good; great. But I am not suggesting PHX has great potential for growth. Just that it has a defined purpose today and is succeeding.
Last edited by Flighty on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:49 pm

KrustyTheKlown wrote:
Phoenix is no small city, but it certainly isn't a global city.


As a data point, as of 2016, Phoenix was a "gamma level" global city according to the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html).

So, one the one hand, the above is incorrect; it makes the list of "global cities," and describing it as "the armpit of America" or "a cultural wasteland" is deeply unfair and, given its proximity to the Dine and Hopi areas, borderline racist.

On the other hand, gamma cities are those that link "smaller economic regions into the world economy"; other gammas in the US include Austin and Cincinnati, and outside the US, Ankara, Chongqing, Pune, and Xiamen. Of the US gamma cities, Austin (which probably punches a bit above its weight due to tech, education, and entertainment) has long-haul to LHR, as does PHX, but not elsewhere. IIRC, Cincinnati has no long-haul. The gamma-plus cities don't fare a lot better. Charlotte and Orlando (again, probably punching above its weight) are gamma-minus cities.

In the 2012 survey, Phoenix was a gamma-plus. In 2010, it was a gamma. It doesn't appear to have made the rankings at all in 2004 or 2008, which was surprising given some of the US cities in the fourth category, "sufficiency cities," which are bigger than PHX. By contrast, Denver was a gamma city a decade ago that appears to have moved up into the ranks of betas now. (Query whether the long-haul flights there were a cause or effect of this, of course.)

What this tells me is that one or two long-hauls out of PHX might be viable, but they need to be on a Oneworld carrier -- in other words, what they've already got, BA to LHR. LH pulling out of PHX bears that view out. Perhaps JAL to Tokyo would work.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:58 pm

Flighty wrote:

DEN isn't a "great" hub much more than PHX is, but it has been very successful.


As I note below, DEN is a gamma-minus city, two categories below PHX. It is also increasing in economic importance. DEN is now thought of alongside the Bay Area, Boston, and NYC as a venture capital/startup hub.

Flighty wrote:
About PHX connections, not sure why you are excluding onward markets like SNA, LGB, BUR, SMF, ONT, FAT, SJC, OAK, SBA, SBP,TUS.


Because a lot of those are just as easily served, often by ground, from LAX (ONT, LBG, SNA) or SFO (SJC,OAK), or aren't in areas that generate much business travel outside of agriculture (FAT).
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5868
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:07 pm

jfk777 wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
IF BA can make PHX work with a 744 with a Premium configuration( including 14 First seats) another airline with a large fortress European hub should be able to make something work with a 787, A330 or 772ER with a more Y seats and only 30 to 40 J class seats. As someone observed PHX has a population of 5 million people.

AA has a large hub there so if all the ingredients are there and work in other cities why not Phoenix ? AA could feed flights from all over the southwest over PHX to Europe, connecting in DFW is not everything. Between DFW and LAX & SFO there is very limited European service via Denver, SLC and Las Vegas. All the people of Mexican decent in the southwest should make a flights to Madrid possible for AA or Iberia. AS much as LHR has to be the center of AA activities to Europe it is not everything. Not everything to Europe has to go through Philadelphia, it time for AA to spread the long haul wealth to the only hub that doesn't have any long hauls for AA.


Being of Mexican descent rarely ever means a person has any connection to Spain. What a weird comment.


The link is a historical one, why is it that so many more Latin Americans fly to Madrid then other European destinations ? They speak Spanish in Latin America and in Spain, common culture. The link should be obvious.


I guess that explains all those SAT-Germany flights since the Germans settled South Texas... :-I

Those countries speak Spanish and have business ties with Spain. Phoenix is in an English speaking country and has very few international ties. What international ties there are deal with Canada and Mexico and precious few to Europe.
"I dance and laugh among the rotten"
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:15 pm

cm642 wrote:
Let's just put it this way, until Arizona leaders (politicians) do a better job of attracting companies from Asian, European, and other foreign markets to set up business in the Valley the demand really won't be there.


The hawkish positions of anti-immigration politicians like Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, and Kelli Ward aren't helping.
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:18 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
In the 2012 survey, Phoenix was a gamma-plus. In 2010, it was a gamma. It doesn't appear to have made the rankings at all in 2004 or 2008, which was surprising given some of the US cities in the fourth category, "sufficiency cities," which are bigger than PHX. By contrast, Denver was a gamma city a decade ago that appears to have moved up into the ranks of betas now. (Query whether the long-haul flights there were a cause or effect of this, of course.)

What this tells me is that one or two long-hauls out of PHX might be viable, but they need to be on a Oneworld carrier -- in other words, what they've already got, BA to LHR. LH pulling out of PHX bears that view out. Perhaps JAL to Tokyo would work.


I'm always skeptical of these lists when I see a hellhole like St. Louis ranked two levels above Phoenix, who has a $70 billion GDP advantage over STL. I mean, you look at the vast majority of the other gamma cities, and you might have heard of them before, but you're sure as hell not familiar with them. Pune? Lusaka?

(Before someone gets triggered, I've lived in both STL and PHX. STL isn't PHX, I think that's fair to admit....)

I think two fulltime BA flights will be a reality eventually. They've expanded the second flight this year from just June and July of last year to March-October of this year so it's definitely trending in the right direction.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:19 pm

Kadish wrote:
Mexico and Spain are the same...sad but real.


He didn't say "Mexico and Spain are the same." Spanish companies have lots of business interests throughout Latin America, which, in addition to the cultural links, explains IB's extensive network there. Now, Spanish companies don't seem to have made a comparable push into the US southwest, probably because ultimately the US southwest at this point owes more culturally to the US than Latin America. That's where the original poster missed the mark. But the notion of a special relationship between Mexico and Spain is fair.
 
Kadish
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:36 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:37 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Kadish wrote:
Mexico and Spain are the same...sad but real.


He didn't say "Mexico and Spain are the same." Spanish companies have lots of business interests throughout Latin America, which, in addition to the cultural links, explains IB's extensive network there. Now, Spanish companies don't seem to have made a comparable push into the US southwest, probably because ultimately the US southwest at this point owes more culturally to the US than Latin America. That's where the original poster missed the mark. But the notion of a special relationship between Mexico and Spain is fair.


U are right indeed, but believe me as a Spanish guy leaving in the US, I ve been asked several times or find comments meaning more or less that both are the same or even that geographically speaking they are close one to another.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5868
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:37 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
Flighty wrote:

DEN isn't a "great" hub much more than PHX is, but it has been very successful.


As I note below, DEN is a gamma-minus city, two categories below PHX. It is also increasing in economic importance. DEN is now thought of alongside the Bay Area, Boston, and NYC as a venture capital/startup hub.

Flighty wrote:
About PHX connections, not sure why you are excluding onward markets like SNA, LGB, BUR, SMF, ONT, FAT, SJC, OAK, SBA, SBP,TUS.


Because a lot of those are just as easily served, often by ground, from LAX (ONT, LBG, SNA) or SFO (SJC,OAK), or aren't in areas that generate much business travel outside of agriculture (FAT).


Im sorry but no Denver isnt. You can see the biggest venture capital cities in the link below:

https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/th ... us/470208/
"I dance and laugh among the rotten"
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:38 pm

irelayer wrote:
The reality is Phoenix and Tucson are in a desert oasis outside of which there is very little for hundreds of miles. To have a good connecting hub you have to have a sufficiently dense network of smaller cities in the immediate vicinity to support the feed and ideally some O/D demand (tourist, business, etc). Some hubs exist on a geographical basis, some exist because they are large O/D markets and some exist because of a combination of both. ORD is a great example of the third one. CLT is a great example of the first one.


Being so close to LAX definitely inhibits PHX, but also pretty much every other airport on the west coast as far north as SEA, and that still hasn't stopped airports like SAN, ONT, SJC, and OAK from scoring new success with new long-hauls. I agree that PHX doesn't have the most impressive O/D figures imaginable, but it's a decent amount. Earlier in the thread, I read something, which has to be among the most ridiculous things ever I have read on A.net, possibly in my life.

LAX772LR wrote:
Population means NOTHING if demand at yield isn't present.... which at PHX, it currently isn't.


Now with all due respect, I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it. Every single city in the top 10 most populous cities with the exception of SAT has more long-hauls than PHX, including several below it such as Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Jose. And for the record, before anyone gets too excited about SAT, AUS is number 11 and little more than 1.5 hours from SAT; 1.5 hours from PHX does not get you to any major airport with more long-hauls than PHX. Population at the level of PHX is more valuable than yield simply because of the sheer scale of the city. Yield is more important in smaller cities where premium traffic has to compensate for lower loads; this is a nonexistent problem in a city that has more people than San Francisco, Washington D.C, and Boston and can fill up a high density plane on the basis of a huge flying base. Cities such as SF, DC, and BOS are smaller and rely more heavily on premium traffic due to a lower population. The more people that fly, the less each person has to contribute; that's economics for dummies. PHX has the population to support a lot more long hauls than it has; I have seen a ton of people saying that nobody wants to visit PHX, fair enough (I personally think it's a great city) but even if this is the case, there are still 1,615,017 residents in the city that have to fly out and that cannot be ignored. People are acting like being the fifth largest city in the US is worthless; it does have value. A lot of cities would kill for the kind of population growth PHX has to support future long-hauls, because population is a big asset to have and not an easy thing to create out of thin air. Yes, PHX's long haul portfolio is pretty slim right now, but the massive population it has means that a city in the middle of the scorching hot desert that would otherwise not even have a chance of being considered is being considered solely because it's pretty damn hard to ignore the weight of the fifth largest city in the US. People don't give PHX enough credit for that. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that PHX is a fortress hub for AA. The only two cities above Phoenix with larger hubs are Chicago and Houston. Phoenix has a pretty massive population and if that isn't a huge chunk of O/D, I don't know what is. Being a huge AA hub is the icing on the cake for PHX, and that only makes its case for future long-hauls stronger. If the population alone can't support a flight, the boost from the AA hub will be more than enough to keep it afloat. PHX is the strongest fortress hub in the southwestern United States and to ignore that is laughable. There is a ton of connecting feed from cities (including small regional cities in the vicinity) in the southwest that goes into PHX that does not go to LAX simply because PHX is a fortress hub and LAX is not. Connecting people over a fortress hub is always more efficient and makes more sense than using up valuable spots in LAX where competition is fierce and which cannot be fully developed to maximize connections as a pose to the advantages of sheer volume and flow through a fortress hub. PHX has the second largest population of a southwestern US city and the largest southwestern hub. That's pretty hard to beat.
 
TUSDawg23
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:43 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:18 am

Maybe not what you think of in the traditional sense of longhaul, but I would love to see Copa do PHX-PTY. That would be a huge win for the state and create a lot more one-stop possibilities between Latin America and AZ. If Copa can make MSY work, I wonder what it would take to make PHX work.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4148
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:20 am

neomax wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Population means NOTHING if demand at yield isn't present.... which at PHX, it currently isn't.


Now with all due respect, I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it. Every single city in the top 10 most populous cities with the exception of SAT has more long-hauls than PHX, including several below it such as Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Jose. And for the record, before anyone gets too excited about SAT, AUS is number 11 and little more than 1.5 hours from SAT; 1.5 hours from PHX does not get you to any major airport with more long-hauls than PHX. Population at the level of PHX is more valuable than yield simply because of the sheer scale of the city. Yield is more important in smaller cities where premium traffic has to compensate for lower loads; this is a nonexistent problem in a city that has more people than San Francisco, Washington D.C, and Boston and can fill up a high density plane on the basis of a huge flying base. Cities such as SF, DC, and BOS are smaller and rely more heavily on premium traffic due to a lower population. The more people that fly, the less each person has to contribute; that's economics for dummies. PHX has the population to support a lot more long hauls than it has; I have seen a ton of people saying that nobody wants to visit PHX, fair enough (I personally think it's a great city) but even if this is the case, there are still 1,615,017 residents in the city that have to fly out and that cannot be ignored. People are acting like being the fifth largest city in the US is worthless; it does have value. A lot of cities would kill for the kind of population growth PHX has to support future long-hauls, because population is a big asset to have and not an easy thing to create out of thin air. Yes, PHX's long haul portfolio is pretty slim right now, but the massive population it has means that a city in the middle of the scorching hot desert that would otherwise not even have a chance of being considered is being considered solely because it's pretty damn hard to ignore the weight of the fifth largest city in the US. People don't give PHX enough credit for that. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that PHX is a fortress hub for AA. The only two cities above Phoenix with larger hubs are Chicago and Houston. Phoenix has a pretty massive population and if that isn't a huge chunk of O/D, I don't know what is. Being a huge AA hub is the icing on the cake for PHX, and that only makes its case for future long-hauls stronger. If the population alone can't support a flight, the boost from the AA hub will be more than enough to keep it afloat. PHX is the strongest fortress hub in the southwestern United States and to ignore that is laughable. There is a ton of connecting feed from cities (including small regional cities in the vicinity) in the southwest that goes into PHX that does not go to LAX simply because PHX is a fortress hub and LAX is not. Connecting people over a fortress hub is always more efficient and makes more sense than using up valuable spots in LAX where competition is fierce and which cannot be fully developed to maximize connections as a pose to the advantages of sheer volume and flow through a fortress hub. PHX has the second largest population of a southwestern US city and the largest southwestern hub. That's pretty hard to beat.


On the surface population looks like a good way to determine which cities deserve more air service, but in reality population is a horrible way to base the air service demand(let alone int'l air service demand) and there are countless examples of this if you look around the US and around the globe...

Prime example of this is DTW/SEA: if you look at the metro area population alone you would think PHX would have greater or at least equal service to Asia as DTW/SEA, but that is not even close to the case.

Soooooo much more goes into determining int'l air service demand than just population (demographics, business ties, VFR travel, and tourism to name a few), but yet almost every PHX poster keeps bringing up population.... Cities that you mentioned like BOS, Bay Area, and DC don't have extensive int'l networks because they are simply large cities, they have extensive int'l networks because they have many global business ties, int'l tourists, large int'l communities, e.t.c, e.t.c. Things that PHX just doesn't have....in just int'l tourism alone, BOS, SFO, and DC probably have at least 2-3 times the int'l tourists that PHX has, so to compare PHX to those cities is apples and oranges...

This is not to mention the fact that any long-haul european routes AA adds out of PHX would have to overfly ORD, DFW, JFK, and PHL
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
irelayer
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:42 am

neomax wrote:
irelayer wrote:
The reality is Phoenix and Tucson are in a desert oasis outside of which there is very little for hundreds of miles. To have a good connecting hub you have to have a sufficiently dense network of smaller cities in the immediate vicinity to support the feed and ideally some O/D demand (tourist, business, etc). Some hubs exist on a geographical basis, some exist because they are large O/D markets and some exist because of a combination of both. ORD is a great example of the third one. CLT is a great example of the first one.


Being so close to LAX definitely inhibits PHX, but also pretty much every other airport on the west coast as far north as SEA, and that still hasn't stopped airports like SAN, ONT, SJC, and OAK from scoring new success with new long-hauls. I agree that PHX doesn't have the most impressive O/D figures imaginable, but it's a decent amount.


All those airports you mentioned have real reasons for having the service they have.

Let's start with SAN.
Major tourist destination with a real international draw. Now maybe not globally (yet) but certainly everyone has heard of the San Diego Zoo, the beaches, the mountains, etc.
A border city (which PHX is not) that forms part of a larger international economy with very real business ties to manufacturing and global trade.
Great weather year round. This means you can do water sports, outdoor activities, etc etc all the time.
Only a slightly smaller population than Phoenix.

Now, up until very recently we only had one N/S to Europe and that was also BA. Now we have NRT, seasonal FRA and ZRH (on Condor and Edelweiss) and about to be year round FRA (on LH), so SAN is actually the closest to your argument you can get.

The other 3 you mentioned (ONT, OAK, SJC) are periphery reliever airports within short driving distance of either LAX or SFO and in the same MSA as those cities. And they each have a unique value proposition except for maybe ONT. ONT has and will continue to be tried and hasn't worked out. OAK and SJC cater to specific needs whether it be overflying a particularly delay prone airport (OAK) or catering to the technology industry (SJC).

So no...I don't think any of those airports are anywhere close to PHX and it's not an apt comparison.

-IR
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:26 am

Midwestindy wrote:
On the surface population looks like a good way to determine which cities deserve more air service, but in reality population is a horrible way to base the air service demand(let alone int'l air service demand) and there are countless examples of this if you look around the US and around the globe...

Prime example of this is DTW/SEA: if you look at the metro area population alone you would think PHX would have greater or at least equal service to Asia as DTW/SEA, but that is not even close to the case.

Soooooo much more goes into determining int'l air service demand than just population (demographics, business ties, VFR travel, and tourism to name a few), but yet almost every PHX poster keeps bringing up population.... Cities that you mentioned like BOS, Bay Area, and DC don't have extensive int'l networks because they are simply large cities, they have extensive int'l networks because they have many global business ties, int'l tourists, large int'l communities, e.t.c, e.t.c. Things that PHX just doesn't have....in just int'l tourism alone, BOS, SFO, and DC probably have at least 2-3 times the int'l tourists that PHX has, so to compare PHX to those cities is apples and oranges...

This is not to mention the fact that any long-haul european routes AA adds out of PHX would have to overfly ORD, DFW, JFK, and PHL


DTW/SEA have much stronger Asia networks than PHX, no doubt about that. But it had to be developed; neither DTW nor SEA had Asia service from day 1, even though many years later we now know unequivocally that they can support it. PHX has incredible potential, but it has to be cultivated, and somebody has to be the one to do it. DTW and SEA are both DL hubs which is one reason both have such strong TPAC networks, as do UA from LAX and SFO. Admittedly, AA is probably the worst airline for the job not only in PHX, but also in MIA, CLT, and PHL, as far as TPAC flights are concerned. United has TPAC flights from ORD, IAH, EWR, IAD, DEN, and SFO. DL has TPAC flights from ATL, DTW, MSP, and SEA. AA has TPAC flights from DFW and ORD... and that's it. I think the argument about PHX not being able to support a TPAC, or other long-hauls holds no water. The problem is not really PHX as much as it is AA's lack of willingness to invest in the network. You mention BOS, SFO, and DC. Miami by your logic should have had a TPAC flight years ago. It doesn't. Miami is every bit as Int'l as Boston, SF, or DC, has more than enough premium traffic, large Int'l communities, tourists, and global business ties, and yet, even Miami doesn't have a single TPAC flight. The reason? AA. UA has launched DEN-NRT, DL has MSP-HND, and both routes connect mid-size cities to Tokyo with a healthy mix of local and connecting traffic. Even CLT can easily support a TPAC as the second largest hub if AA just had the willingness to invest in the network, but it doesn't. Imagine DTW without the Asia network. That is basically CLT today. A strong domestic and Atlantic presence, but a nonexistent Pacific presence. Philadelphia likewise is (literally) between DC and Boston, yet it also does not have any TPAC flights despite being the headquarters of several Fortune 500 companies and a good amount of premium corporate traffic to support such flights. PHX's scarcity of long-hauls is more or less the casualty of becoming an AA hub at a time when US still had plans to grow PHX to the Pacific what CLT and PHL were to the Atlantic. AA essentially pulled the plug on this, and it was a form of dehubbing, make no mistake. While AA didn't cut anything for the most part, they definitely didn't let it grow, shelving TPAC plans, and that is the unfortunate part, not only for PHX, but also for PHL, MIA, and CLT. For as long as PHX is an AA hub, PHX's main hope for long-hauls is not from AA, it is going to be from foreign carriers, and that is going to take a loooong time, even if the demand is there. If it weren't for DL, DTW still would not have a single TPAC carrier even today, despite the fact that we now know DTW can and does support those TPAC flights, and in fact the only one from the US to Nagoya as well. JAL will come to PHX with time, as will others, but foreign carriers will always take longer to come, and the greater amount of time it takes cannot be used to say PHX can't support them if they are not already here. If PHX doesn't have an expansive long-haul network today, that is not to say that it won't in the future. Everyone has to start somewhere, whether it's PHX or MIA.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:58 am

[/quote]

I have no idea what the market is like for PHX-KEF, but I'd imagine it is tiny.
[/quote]
ANC/MCI/STL/CLE/CVG/PIT-KEF were probably next to nothing, but they all still got flights. WW and FI are unique because they can lower fares and create demand where there was none.
Interesting how every thread is spammed with "bring back paid membership, there are too many spammers"
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4148
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:10 am

neomax wrote:
PHX has incredible potential, but it has to be cultivated, and somebody has to be the one to do it.


You have not shown a single lick of evidence to prove this, do you have any data to back up this claim?...

The BA flights aren't even full, for July(the last month data is available for) the PHX-LHR LF was at 72%!
Last edited by Midwestindy on Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
User avatar
NickolayAv
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:44 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:12 am

stl07 wrote:
ANC/MCI/STL/CLE/CVG/PIT-KEF were probably next to nothing, but they all still got flights. WW and FI are unique because they can lower fares and create demand where there was none.

The difference is that all the airports listed above can be reached by smaller aircraft such as the 737Max, A321ceo and neo and 757. PHX cannot be serviced by those planes, therefore it will need an A330 or B767. I'm not sure PHX has the capacity to fill an aircraft of that size.
"If you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline"-Richard Branson
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:46 am

What on earth are you talking about? AA has invested mightily in its network in the last few years. You say below that AA only has transpacific flights from ORD and DFW, "that's it", as you say.
UMMMMMMM.... have you heard of LAX? In the past few years, AA has invested heavily in its transpacific presence at LAX... and now flies to NRT, HND, PVG, PEK, SYD and AKL, in addition to LHR and GRU in Brazil. What on earth are you talking about? All that is investment. The population and the better connections for these routes are in LAX, not PHX.

neomax wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
On the surface population looks like a good way to determine which cities deserve more air service, but in reality population is a horrible way to base the air service demand(let alone int'l air service demand) and there are countless examples of this if you look around the US and around the globe...

Prime example of this is DTW/SEA: if you look at the metro area population alone you would think PHX would have greater or at least equal service to Asia as DTW/SEA, but that is not even close to the case.

Soooooo much more goes into determining int'l air service demand than just population (demographics, business ties, VFR travel, and tourism to name a few), but yet almost every PHX poster keeps bringing up population.... Cities that you mentioned like BOS, Bay Area, and DC don't have extensive int'l networks because they are simply large cities, they have extensive int'l networks because they have many global business ties, int'l tourists, large int'l communities, e.t.c, e.t.c. Things that PHX just doesn't have....in just int'l tourism alone, BOS, SFO, and DC probably have at least 2-3 times the int'l tourists that PHX has, so to compare PHX to those cities is apples and oranges...

This is not to mention the fact that any long-haul european routes AA adds out of PHX would have to overfly ORD, DFW, JFK, and PHL


DTW/SEA have much stronger Asia networks than PHX, no doubt about that. But it had to be developed; neither DTW nor SEA had Asia service from day 1, even though many years later we now know unequivocally that they can support it. PHX has incredible potential, but it has to be cultivated, and somebody has to be the one to do it. DTW and SEA are both DL hubs which is one reason both have such strong TPAC networks, as do UA from LAX and SFO. Admittedly, AA is probably the worst airline for the job not only in PHX, but also in MIA, CLT, and PHL, as far as TPAC flights are concerned. United has TPAC flights from ORD, IAH, EWR, IAD, DEN, and SFO. DL has TPAC flights from ATL, DTW, MSP, and SEA. AA has TPAC flights from DFW and ORD... and that's it. I think the argument about PHX not being able to support a TPAC, or other long-hauls holds no water. The problem is not really PHX as much as it is AA's lack of willingness to invest in the network. You mention BOS, SFO, and DC. Miami by your logic should have had a TPAC flight years ago. It doesn't. Miami is every bit as Int'l as Boston, SF, or DC, has more than enough premium traffic, large Int'l communities, tourists, and global business ties, and yet, even Miami doesn't have a single TPAC flight. The reason? AA. UA has launched DEN-NRT, DL has MSP-HND, and both routes connect mid-size cities to Tokyo with a healthy mix of local and connecting traffic. Even CLT can easily support a TPAC as the second largest hub if AA just had the willingness to invest in the network, but it doesn't. Imagine DTW without the Asia network. That is basically CLT today. A strong domestic and Atlantic presence, but a nonexistent Pacific presence. Philadelphia likewise is (literally) between DC and Boston, yet it also does not have any TPAC flights despite being the headquarters of several Fortune 500 companies and a good amount of premium corporate traffic to support such flights. PHX's scarcity of long-hauls is more or less the casualty of becoming an AA hub at a time when US still had plans to grow PHX to the Pacific what CLT and PHL were to the Atlantic. AA essentially pulled the plug on this, and it was a form of dehubbing, make no mistake. While AA didn't cut anything for the most part, they definitely didn't let it grow, shelving TPAC plans, and that is the unfortunate part, not only for PHX, but also for PHL, MIA, and CLT. For as long as PHX is an AA hub, PHX's main hope for long-hauls is not from AA, it is going to be from foreign carriers, and that is going to take a loooong time, even if the demand is there. If it weren't for DL, DTW still would not have a single TPAC carrier even today, despite the fact that we now know DTW can and does support those TPAC flights, and in fact the only one from the US to Nagoya as well. JAL will come to PHX with time, as will others, but foreign carriers will always take longer to come, and the greater amount of time it takes cannot be used to say PHX can't support them if they are not already here. If PHX doesn't have an expansive long-haul network today, that is not to say that it won't in the future. Everyone has to start somewhere, whether it's PHX or MIA.
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:02 am

jasoncrh wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? AA has invested mightily in its network in the last few years. You say below that AA only has transpacific flights from ORD and DFW, "that's it", as you say.
UMMMMMMM.... have you heard of LAX? In the past few years, AA has invested heavily in its transpacific presence at LAX... and now flies to NRT, HND, PVG, PEK, SYD and AKL, in addition to LHR and GRU in Brazil. What on earth are you talking about? All that is investment. The population and the better connections for these routes are in LAX, not PHX.


Yeah, they "invested" in LAX because competition forced them to. That or AA could let themselves get killed by UA at SFO, DL at SEA and both who are already at LAX. Where there's no competition from UA and DL, AA is not investing. UA+DL at LAX=competition=investment. No UA+DL at PHX=no competition=no investment.

Who's competing with UA on DEN-NRT or DL on MSP-HND? That's called real investment.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5868
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:04 am

neomax wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:
Population means NOTHING if demand at yield isn't present.... which at PHX, it currently isn't.


Now with all due respect, I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it. Every single city in the top 10 most populous cities with the exception of SAT has more long-hauls than PHX, including several below it such as Philadelphia, Dallas, and San Jose. And for the record, before anyone gets too excited about SAT, AUS is number 11 and little more than 1.5 hours from SAT; 1.5 hours from PHX does not get you to any major airport with more long-hauls than PHX. Population at the level of PHX is more valuable than yield simply because of the sheer scale of the city. Yield is more important in smaller cities where premium traffic has to compensate for lower loads; this is a nonexistent problem in a city that has more people than San Francisco, Washington D.C, and Boston and can fill up a high density plane on the basis of a huge flying base. Cities such as SF, DC, and BOS are smaller and rely more heavily on premium traffic due to a lower population. The more people that fly, the less each person has to contribute; that's economics for dummies. PHX has the population to support a lot more long hauls than it has; I have seen a ton of people saying that nobody wants to visit PHX, fair enough (I personally think it's a great city) but even if this is the case, there are still 1,615,017 residents in the city that have to fly out and that cannot be ignored. People are acting like being the fifth largest city in the US is worthless; it does have value. A lot of cities would kill for the kind of population growth PHX has to support future long-hauls, because population is a big asset to have and not an easy thing to create out of thin air. Yes, PHX's long haul portfolio is pretty slim right now, but the massive population it has means that a city in the middle of the scorching hot desert that would otherwise not even have a chance of being considered is being considered solely because it's pretty damn hard to ignore the weight of the fifth largest city in the US. People don't give PHX enough credit for that. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that PHX is a fortress hub for AA. The only two cities above Phoenix with larger hubs are Chicago and Houston. Phoenix has a pretty massive population and if that isn't a huge chunk of O/D, I don't know what is. Being a huge AA hub is the icing on the cake for PHX, and that only makes its case for future long-hauls stronger. If the population alone can't support a flight, the boost from the AA hub will be more than enough to keep it afloat. PHX is the strongest fortress hub in the southwestern United States and to ignore that is laughable. There is a ton of connecting feed from cities (including small regional cities in the vicinity) in the southwest that goes into PHX that does not go to LAX simply because PHX is a fortress hub and LAX is not. Connecting people over a fortress hub is always more efficient and makes more sense than using up valuable spots in LAX where competition is fierce and which cannot be fully developed to maximize connections as a pose to the advantages of sheer volume and flow through a fortress hub. PHX has the second largest population of a southwestern US city and the largest southwestern hub. That's pretty hard to beat.


I really want to say this with respect but I know its going to come across wrong. However, this has to be addressed.

The paragraph above demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the airline industry.

1) Your trying to use city limits data to justify service. That is wrong on SOOOOOO many levels. First off, city limits has nothing to do with catchment area. For example, yes Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the US. However, the only reason for that is that its 518 square miles. By comparison San Francisco is technically a smaller city, but San Francisco is 47 square miles. How is that apples to apples?

2) Back to catchment area, do only people from the city limits use the airports? You have to look at CSA, MSA, or Urban Area for this. Given that, Phoenix isn't in the top 10 nation wide.

3) People have brought up ethnic diversity, Phoenix isn't internationally diverse relative to its size. Statistically, it simply isn't. 56% of greater Phoenix is non-Hispanic white. Now that is lower than some more diverse metro areas, however you have to dig deeper. Beyond that 31% of Phoenix is Hispanic and of that 28% is Mexican. That doesn't leave a lot of room for non-Mexican Hispanic that you see in places like Houston, Dallas, Chicago, LA, The Bay Area, and especially Miami, Orlando, DC, Boston, and NYC. That leaves about 15% of the great Phoenix area for all that isn't white or Mexican. You have another 7% that is African American and another 4% that is Native American. One could argue that Phoenix is domestically diverse because it does have the largest Native American population in a Metro area in the US and thats nothing to sneeze at. However Natives don't drive international travel. So that leaves us with Phoenix's non-Mexican/Canadian communities. That makes up about 5% of the population. That roughly 235,000 of the great Phoenix MSA for every other nationality. Of that 5%, roughly 1% is Indian, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and Chinese make up .07% a piece and the rest is everyone else. That doesn't leave a lot of room for the rest of the world.

Then you have to dive deeper into the figures themselves. 1% of greater Phoenix is Indian. That means roughly 43-45k total. How much is that really and do they travel? If they do travel, what are their yields like? To put it in perspective, Dallas has 167k Indians, LA has 162k, Philly has 135k, Houston has 127k, Atlanta has 116k, Seattle has 85k, and Detroit has 75k. Those would be considered Phoenix's sister cities in terms of location and/or size and Phoenix has nowhere near the number of Indians those metro areas have.

Then you have to consider business ties to the region that would fill J seats. Houston has oil and gas, DC has government contractors, Dallas has telecom, Seattle has tech, NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA need no explanation. What does Phoenix have thats going to fill J seats?

4) People have brought up tourism. Phoenix is a huge tourist magnet: for Canadians and Cold Climate Americans. What tourist market does Phoenix have that is going to fill J seats from places in the Middle East or Asia?

5) You seem to indicate that the most important thing is filling the plane. It isn't. Filling J and F seats are very important as is cargo. However, a full Y cabin means absolutely NOTHING.

6) You seem to indicate that population determines demand. It doesn't. Greater Phoenix has a larger population than Greater Seattle but Seattle produces WAY more O&D to Asia and Europe that Phoenix could dream of.

Does this mean I think Phoenix will get no more long haul flights? No. I think Norwegian is a perfect fit to launch a market like PHX-CDG 2x a week. I think Asia makes no sense from Phoenix and the ME3 would be wasting their time if their motive is to make a profit in PHX.
"I dance and laugh among the rotten"
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:21 am

You specifically said that AA only had transpacific flights from ORD and DFW. "That's it" was the exact phrase you used.
your points below really make no sense and belie a complete lack of understanding of the industry.


neomax wrote:
jasoncrh wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? AA has invested mightily in its network in the last few years. You say below that AA only has transpacific flights from ORD and DFW, "that's it", as you say.
UMMMMMMM.... have you heard of LAX? In the past few years, AA has invested heavily in its transpacific presence at LAX... and now flies to NRT, HND, PVG, PEK, SYD and AKL, in addition to LHR and GRU in Brazil. What on earth are you talking about? All that is investment. The population and the better connections for these routes are in LAX, not PHX.


Yeah, they "invested" in LAX because competition forced them to. That or AA could let themselves get killed by UA at SFO, DL at SEA and both who are already at LAX. Where there's no competition from UA and DL, AA is not investing. UA+DL at LAX=competition=investment. No UA+DL at PHX=no competition=no investment.

Who's competing with UA on DEN-NRT or DL on MSP-HND? That's called real investment.
 
wn676
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:22 am

777PHX wrote:
westgate wrote:
By the way, does anyone know the exact history of BA on the PHX-LHR route ? When did it start, what equipment was initially used and when did they start deploying the 744 ???


It started on July 1, 1996 with the DC10 and it was originally LHR-PHX-SAN. At some point when the economy bottomed out in 2008/2009 it went to 6x weekly and on the 77E, but it's been the 744 again now for a while.


They originally served LGW-PHX-SAN with the DC-10 and was upgauged to the 747 in 1998. In 2001 they dropped the SAN tag and the flight was downgauged to the 777. About a year later it was moved to LHR, and I think it was 2005 when the 747 returned.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
jubguy3
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:27 am

There is a hilarious amount of provincialism in this thread.

PHX is geographically inconvenient and it doesn't have the draw that LAX / LAS does, and it doesn't have the alliances that bring traffic like in DEN and SLC beyond London. PHX is a low candidate for A TPAC flight.
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:31 am

jasoncrh wrote:
You specifically said that AA only had transpacific flights from ORD and DFW. "That's it" was the exact phrase you used.
your points below really make no sense and belie a complete lack of understanding of the industry.


I excluded LAX from all of the US3. If you want to include it, be my guest, but it makes no difference as DL and UA use LAX as a TPAC gateway as well. If you exclude, it, then it's ORD and DFW. That's it.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 2890
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:38 am

NickolayAv wrote:
stl07 wrote:
ANC/MCI/STL/CLE/CVG/PIT-KEF were probably next to nothing, but they all still got flights. WW and FI are unique because they can lower fares and create demand where there was none.

The difference is that all the airports listed above can be reached by smaller aircraft such as the 737Max, A321ceo and neo and 757. PHX cannot be serviced by those planes, therefore it will need an A330 or B767. I'm not sure PHX has the capacity to fill an aircraft of that size.


I am pretty sure WOW has been running a 321neo to LAX the last week. That means they could do PHX with it also.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:08 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:


I really want to say this with respect but I know its going to come across wrong. However, this has to be addressed.

The paragraph above demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the airline industry.

1) Your trying to use city limits data to justify service. That is wrong on SOOOOOO many levels. First off, city limits has nothing to do with catchment area. . . . . . .
.
.
6) You seem to indicate that population determines demand. It doesn't. Greater Phoenix has a larger population than Greater Seattle but Seattle produces WAY more O&D to Asia and Europe that Phoenix could dream of.

Does this mean I think Phoenix will get no more long haul flights? No. I think Norwegian is a perfect fit to launch a market like PHX-CDG 2x a week. I think Asia makes no sense from Phoenix and the ME3 would be wasting their time if their motive is to make a profit in PHX.


Well put :bouncy:
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12487
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:11 am

neomax wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Population means NOTHING if demand at yield isn't present.... which at PHX, it currently isn't.

I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it.

You should probably pay closer attention to what's written, before digressing off into a lengthy run-on that does little more than showcase your inexperience with how the industry actually operates.

But here, let's do a little exercise so you can see for yourself:
Recite the six words that follow "nothing," then tell me why you think they were placed there and what you believe they signify. I'll wait.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:41 am

LAX772LR wrote:
neomax wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Population means NOTHING if demand at yield isn't present.... which at PHX, it currently isn't.

I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it.

You should probably pay closer attention to what's written, before digressing off into a lengthy run-on that does little more than showcase your inexperience with how the industry actually operates.

But here, let's do a little exercise so you can see for yourself:
Recite the six words that follow "nothing," then tell me why you think they were placed there and what you believe they signify. I'll wait.


Your initial statement is still far too simplistic and ultimately inaccurate, indicating you lack knowledge about how the industry runs. Population isn't the be-all and end-all as you say, but your statement assumes airlines operate flights from XXX to XXX simply because demand at a sufficient yield is there. As we know from the economic reality we are in, that's a false assumption. Often routes aren't flown even if demand is sufficient due to strategy choices from operating airlines. It's especially true when an airline has some measure of market power, which AA has in PHX for long-haul itineraries. Those choices, by definition, create a relatively under-served market.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12487
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:08 am

MSPNWA wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
neomax wrote:
I don't know who this person is or their level of education, but to say this is ignorant is an understatement and an insult to ignorant people. Population absolutely does have an impact whether this person refuses to believe it.

You should probably pay closer attention to what's written, before digressing off into a lengthy run-on that does little more than showcase your inexperience with how the industry actually operates.

But here, let's do a little exercise so you can see for yourself:
Recite the six words that follow "nothing," then tell me why you think they were placed there and what you believe they signify. I'll wait.


Your initial statement is still far too simplistic and ultimately inaccurate, indicating you lack knowledge about how the industry runs. Population isn't the be-all and end-all as you say, but your statement assumes

I'll stop the quote right there, because my statement isn't assuming anything... you are:
I didn't say that population at yield is key (as your post is presuming), because it's not.

What I said was that population without yield is meaningless to airlines, which it is.
The two statements are not synonymous.

That said: in all accuracy, the true key to all of this is the balance of yield vs. opportunity cost.
No amount of population+yield (or lack thereof) is going to entice an airline to do anything in a vacuum.

Which is why your continuous (though here, slightly veiled) refrain of "airline who took over my old favorite is screwing us because it's actively stifling traffic to X, Y, Z" falls flat, as you have no idea what their opportunity cost is for such an operation, despite how profitable or lucrative you might assume it to be.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
hz747300
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:24 am

bagoldex wrote:
cm642 wrote:
What is keeping Phoenix from landing more international flights?


Below are the top international destinations for Phoenix passengers and how many people fly to and from these place and Phoenix daily, according to Sky Harbor data:

London: 121.6
Paris: 47.9
Tokyo 36.3
Amsterdam: 34
Frankfurt: 34

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/05/13/what-is-keeping-phoenix-from-landing-more.html


I bet Tokyo & Frankfurt are military traffic.
Keep on truckin'...
 
bagoldex
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Why is PHX underserved by long haul routes?

Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:31 am

hz747300 wrote:
bagoldex wrote:
cm642 wrote:
What is keeping Phoenix from landing more international flights?


Below are the top international destinations for Phoenix passengers and how many people fly to and from these place and Phoenix daily, according to Sky Harbor data:

London: 121.6
Paris: 47.9
Tokyo 36.3
Amsterdam: 34
Frankfurt: 34

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2015/05/13/what-is-keeping-phoenix-from-landing-more.html


I bet Tokyo & Frankfurt are military traffic.


Doesn't really matter what it is, at 18 and 17 pdew no one's going to touch those routes.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos