Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:00 pm

FlyRow wrote:
Blerg wrote:
What's surprising to me is that United isn't making the most of Aegean being a Star Alliance member. They have a growing domestic, regional and Middle Eastern network. United could offer connections to many destinations which could even help in turning EWR into a year-round destination.Yet in the end it's Delta and American, both having feed only one one end, that are thriving in Athens.


While they have a nice network, for a lot of destinations it involves backtracking. And other carriers in Europe offer flights to many of the same destinations.
Secondly, while they have recieved the last EU-Aid package , the economy and employment rates are not good. It's getting better, but demand won't be that high.


What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:11 pm

Blerg wrote:
FlyRow wrote:
Blerg wrote:
What's surprising to me is that United isn't making the most of Aegean being a Star Alliance member. They have a growing domestic, regional and Middle Eastern network. United could offer connections to many destinations which could even help in turning EWR into a year-round destination.Yet in the end it's Delta and American, both having feed only one one end, that are thriving in Athens.


While they have a nice network, for a lot of destinations it involves backtracking. And other carriers in Europe offer flights to many of the same destinations.
Secondly, while they have recieved the last EU-Aid package , the economy and employment rates are not good. It's getting better, but demand won't be that high.


What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.


I think that's what TK is for.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:31 pm

klm617 wrote:
Wonder what happened with the new Denver route they were suppose to announce ?



It's still coming...
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:42 pm

Well, I guess IAH won't be getting any new service to South America in the next 6 months. I was hoping they would try to better leverage the new partnership with AV a bit more.
 
hooverman
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:22 pm

SFOA380 wrote:
I wonder how KLM will respond to the SFO-AMS add... Will the second seasonal frequency (currently 4x weekly 789) be cut?


Perhaps KLM will take on the fight and go double daily year round.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2938
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:35 pm

neomax wrote:
Blerg wrote:
FlyRow wrote:

While they have a nice network, for a lot of destinations it involves backtracking. And other carriers in Europe offer flights to many of the same destinations.
Secondly, while they have recieved the last EU-Aid package , the economy and employment rates are not good. It's getting better, but demand won't be that high.


What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.


I think that's what TK is for.


I agree with Blerg, it is too bad UA & A3 don't collaborate more. I think A3 has a lot to offer that it's other partners don't.

I love Turkey but with the current political climate and degradation of the rule of law, I would hesitate before even transiting in IST.

Regardless, UA prefers to put it's pax on it's Trans-Atlantic JV partners (LH, AC, OS, LX & SN) since they share in the revenue and are in bed together. Honestly, when looking for European flights on UA, it's like the rest of Star Alliance doesn't even exist. Plus, if you are trying to rack up PQMs and have the good fortune of flying in business or first, you will want to stay on the JV airlines where you can earn a lot more.

But, I would love to see UA even code share with A3 to the islands. I think UA should just launch ORD-ATH. It will be a blood bath in 2019 but given AA's history of backing away from competition, UA will likely win and have the market to themselves in 2020...
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:44 pm

Most of those destinations are markets already served by Lufthansa, Austrian, and Swiss. Long haul routes live and die by the corporate and local traffic on the trunk route (the US - first landing point). In the summer, Athens does well because there are a LOT of Americans who go there who are willing to pay the $1000+ roundtrip fares to make a service like that viable. There simply arent that many in the winter. And in the winter, there's ZERO business to the Greek Islands (even Aegean drastically reduces services), and all the other destinations you mention are ones that, for the most part, are served by other partners at their hubs.

Blerg wrote:
FlyRow wrote:
Blerg wrote:
What's surprising to me is that United isn't making the most of Aegean being a Star Alliance member. They have a growing domestic, regional and Middle Eastern network. United could offer connections to many destinations which could even help in turning EWR into a year-round destination.Yet in the end it's Delta and American, both having feed only one one end, that are thriving in Athens.


While they have a nice network, for a lot of destinations it involves backtracking. And other carriers in Europe offer flights to many of the same destinations.
Secondly, while they have recieved the last EU-Aid package , the economy and employment rates are not good. It's getting better, but demand won't be that high.


What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:53 pm

jasoncrh wrote:
Most of those destinations are markets already served by Lufthansa, Austrian, and Swiss. Long haul routes live and die by the corporate and local traffic on the trunk route (the US - first landing point). In the summer, Athens does well because there are a LOT of Americans who go there who are willing to pay the $1000+ roundtrip fares to make a service like that viable. There simply arent that many in the winter. And in the winter, there's ZERO business to the Greek Islands (even Aegean drastically reduces services), and all the other destinations you mention are ones that, for the most part, are served by other partners at their hubs.


It depends on the island. Santorini is becoming a year-round destination. Athens-Santorini on Ryanair is double daily this winter, 16 weekly (A320) on Aegean and 4 weekly (B717) on Volotea, with some additional flights in Christmas / New Year. That is 11,860 seats per week to ATH in low season for an island where 15,000 people live. So definitely no zero business there unless locals fly every week to ATH back and forth :). And for this coming year there is a new hit: Vueling will fly year-round from FCO to JTR. So definitely more destinations will come in the future in winter season. I imagine Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Amsterdam or Barcelona to Santorini would be realistic in winter in the next few years.

I was there in late October last year (so literally the last week of the aviation summer season) and the place was quite crowded. Not August crowded, but I was surprised about how busy it was. And at that time of the year most people around were non-Europeans (since most holiday Euro flights are over). So Asians and Americans everywhere. When I asked in my hotel if they planned to close in winter, they said they don't do that anymore because Asian or American tourists will fly any time of the year to Athens and then will hop on the Ryanair flight.
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:24 pm

United787 wrote:
neomax wrote:
Blerg wrote:

What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.


I think that's what TK is for.


I agree with Blerg, it is too bad UA & A3 don't collaborate more. I think A3 has a lot to offer that it's other partners don't.

I love Turkey but with the current political climate and degradation of the rule of law, I would hesitate before even transiting in IST.

Regardless, UA prefers to put it's pax on it's Trans-Atlantic JV partners (LH, AC, OS, LX & SN) since they share in the revenue and are in bed together. Honestly, when looking for European flights on UA, it's like the rest of Star Alliance doesn't even exist. Plus, if you are trying to rack up PQMs and have the good fortune of flying in business or first, you will want to stay on the JV airlines where you can earn a lot more.

But, I would love to see UA even code share with A3 to the islands. I think UA should just launch ORD-ATH. It will be a blood bath in 2019 but given AA's history of backing away from competition, UA will likely win and have the market to themselves in 2020...


It is quite obvious that UA and A3 don't cooperate with each other much. The same is true with TG and ET, but at least they have some code-share flights with UA. I cannot think of one current UA/A3 combination, although it has existed before. But an ironic twist......there are A3 code-share flight numbers on the AC flights to ATH. And in fact, even some overwater AC flights to other places in Europe. But not on the UA overwater trip.

As for backtracking on connections, Italy isn't that far from Greece. Some may opt to go via ATH, for the better fare........much like the folks that go SEA-LHR via LAX. Plus there are some destinations(i.e. TIA, MLA, etc.) that don't have all that much service.....a little backtracking....but really not that far out of the way.....

In the case of the Jewish High Holidays, those usually come right when the summer season wraps up in Greece. EWR-ATH could prove to be useful, providing supplemental capacity using A3's ATH-TLV trip.

As for UA launching ORD-ATH, and go head-to-head against AA, one of the UA flight attendants I talked to, suggested this........."leap frog" over them, and start in time for Orthodox Easter, which is the busiest non-Summer period for Greek travel........Easter is 28 April, for 2019, and ,maybe start the flight around the 22nd or 23rd, which is a week earlier than AA's 5/3 start date.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:37 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
NAP surprises me. It's good for Amalfi coast tourists and the like, but there are some more difficulties in doing business in that part of Italy. UA has grown their Italian presence in the last 3 years. Going from 1x IAD-FCO and 1x EWR-MXP to adding FCO-ORD and EWR, along with EWR- VCE. I'm a bit surprised they don't do a second service in summer to MXP from ORD or IAD.


Not exactly correct. CO served MXP and FCO from EWR for a long time. UA did not "add" EWR-FCO. It inherited the route from CO and turned it to a seasonal one for a time (CO also went seasonal on and off) and resumed year round with reduced frequency in the winter once NAX entered the market. FCO-ORD was in place and has not been a recent add. UA has flown it for years. EWR-VCE was added a few years ago.


Not quite true. Seasonal FCO-ORD is a relatively new service. UA has only been operating it for a few years now. IAD-FCO is a long-standing service that goes back to the 90s
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:45 pm

chrisnh wrote:
How cute! The big airlines are now all of a sudden caring about the lesser European cities now that they’ve got competition (or will), not because they really want to be there.


I don't understand your post. An airline only wants to fly to a destination for two reasons: Profit and/or because they are at a competitive disadvantage if they don't serve it. It's not like they say "hey, this place is really beautiful or cool, lets fly there"
 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:05 am

neomax wrote:
Blerg wrote:
FlyRow wrote:

While they have a nice network, for a lot of destinations it involves backtracking. And other carriers in Europe offer flights to many of the same destinations.
Secondly, while they have recieved the last EU-Aid package , the economy and employment rates are not good. It's getting better, but demand won't be that high.


What destinations would actually require backtracking? I am not saying they are going to fly to Paris or Milan via Athens but destinations such as Istanbul, Izmir, Greek islands, Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riyadh... could all be conveniently served via Athens in cooperation with Aegean.

Like I wrote earlier, additional feed on Aegean could help them turn this seasonal route into year-round. Don't forget that despite the ongoing crisis, Aegean remains an extremely profitable business.


I think that's what TK is for.


And how exactly is TK useful to United when they have a strained relationship and when UA doesn't even operate any flights to Turkey. Also, didn't UA's main partner LH suspend all code-share agreements with TK?

On another note, US carriers might be coveniently serving Europe and beyond through a few local hubs but they need to diversify their offer. If you look at UA most of their connections are through FRA followed by MUC.
In summer FRA turns into a zoo. It's not uncommon to sit in the plane for 40 minutes waiting for a gate. I was there about ten days ago and a United B772 was parked at a remote stand from where passengers were bused to the terminal. Once inside that overcrowded concrete palace you are faced with another mess and the fact that FRA is ugly and outdated doesn't help either (unless you are flying from the few fancy gates at the new terminal).
All in all, it wouldn't be unwise for United to look at other airports such as VIE or ATH to relieve some of the pressure from FRA. MUC is also great but its network and frequencies require some additional work.

Same applies for American Airlines which heavily relies on the overcrowded LHR. Then again, they don't have a choice as oneworld doesn't have another partner with a better location. RIP AB.

Delta is in the best position as they have both CDG and AMS which are both located at the very beginning on Europe and where they can make the most of Air France's, KLM's and Transavia's network.

So yes, maybe it's lucrative for them to rely on these few hubs but for some like UA and FRA or AA and LHR, it wouldn't hurt them to actually look at new ways to funnel their traffic as the overall travel experience can be quite bad and might actually push passengers to look at other, sometimes smaller carriers, that operate year-round flights to the US such as Norwegian, SAS, LOT, Finnair, Aer Lingus...
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:39 am

Blerg wrote:
Same applies for American Airlines which heavily relies on the overcrowded LHR. Then again, they don't have a choice as oneworld doesn't have another partner with a better location. RIP AB


There is that place called T4 in MAD, which particularly for Southern Europe is the natural AA partner in Europe.
 
factsonly
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:46 am

Blerg wrote:

Delta is in the best position as they have both CDG and AMS which are both located at the very beginning on Europe and where they can make the most of Air France's, KLM's and Transavia's network.



And Delta also happily by-pass their Euro hubs AMS and CDG with (seasonal) non-stop flights to smaller European destinations, when demand/profit warrants.

With their recent announcements, UA and AA apply exactly the same network strategy.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:30 am

SCQ83 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Same applies for American Airlines which heavily relies on the overcrowded LHR. Then again, they don't have a choice as oneworld doesn't have another partner with a better location. RIP AB


There is that place called T4 in MAD, which particularly for Southern Europe is the natural AA partner in Europe.


Yes but Madrid is convenient for a relatively small part of Europe, not to mention that Iberia's reach beyond Italy is relatively limited. When it comes to Europe and the Middle East, MAD is an inferior transfer point compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:49 am

Blerg wrote:
Yes but Madrid is convenient for a relatively small part of Europe, not to mention that Iberia's reach beyond Italy is relatively limited. When it comes to Europe and the Middle East, MAD is an inferior transfer point compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA.


Madrid covers well touristic places for Americans. For instance Tel Aviv is 4 daily in Iberia (codeshared with ElAl) which is by far the largest ME destination for Americans. Croatia (another hotspot) is daily to SPU, 3 daily to DBV and 2 daily to ZAG (BA doesn't even fly LHR-DBV). Italy, Portugal, France and Morocco are extremely well served. Urban summer destinations like Berlin or Prague are also fine. Greece is a slightly weaker link but there are flights to ATH, HER, JMK and JTR on Iberia.

Definitely Iberia doesn't cater for the needs of the Polish, Lebanese or Romanian VFR living in Illinois or Toronto and heading home to Rzeszow, Beirut or Cluj-Napoca in August. But BA does not either. For that you have Lufthansa or Air France. But for the American tourist heading for key holiday spots in Europe, MAD offers a lot of connectivity.
 
fraT
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:32 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:59 am

Blerg wrote:
In summer FRA turns into a zoo. It's not uncommon to sit in the plane for 40 minutes waiting for a gate. I was there about ten days ago and a United B772 was parked at a remote stand from where passengers were bused to the terminal. Once inside that overcrowded concrete palace you are faced with another mess and the fact that FRA is ugly and outdated doesn't help either (unless you are flying from the few fancy gates at the new terminal).
All in all, it wouldn't be unwise for United to look at other airports such as VIE or ATH to relieve some of the pressure from FRA. MUC is also great but its network and frequencies require some additional work.

Same applies for American Airlines which heavily relies on the overcrowded LHR. Then again, they don't have a choice as oneworld doesn't have another partner with a better location. RIP AB.

Delta is in the best position as they have both CDG and AMS which are both located at the very beginning on Europe and where they can make the most of Air France's, KLM's and Transavia's network.

So yes, maybe it's lucrative for them to rely on these few hubs but for some like UA and FRA or AA and LHR, it wouldn't hurt them to actually look at new ways to funnel their traffic as the overall travel experience can be quite bad and might actually push passengers to look at other, sometimes smaller carriers, that operate year-round flights to the US such as Norwegian, SAS, LOT, Finnair, Aer Lingus...


Interesting, that you are considering DL's position at AMS and especially CDG so much better than UA's in FRA and AA's in LHR. For connections LHR is geographically located even better than AMS and CDG and from an "overcrowded" stand point, I would not consider CDG to be a better place than LHR and FRA. Only disadvantage for AA in LHR is that they are not in the BA Terminal 5 .
 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:09 am

SCQ83 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Yes but Madrid is convenient for a relatively small part of Europe, not to mention that Iberia's reach beyond Italy is relatively limited. When it comes to Europe and the Middle East, MAD is an inferior transfer point compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA.


Madrid covers well touristic places for Americans. For instance Tel Aviv is 4 daily in Iberia (codeshared with ElAl) which is by far the largest ME destination for Americans. Croatia (another hotspot) is daily to SPU, 3 daily to DBV and 2 daily to ZAG (BA doesn't even fly LHR-DBV). Italy, Portugal, France and Morocco are extremely well served. Urban summer destinations like Berlin or Prague are also fine. Greece is a slightly weaker link but there are flights to ATH, HER, JMK and JTR on Iberia.

Definitely Iberia doesn't cater for the needs of the Polish, Lebanese or Romanian VFR living in Illinois or Toronto and heading home to Rzeszow, Beirut or Cluj-Napoca in August. But BA does not either. For that you have Lufthansa or Air France. But for the American tourist heading for key holiday spots in Europe, MAD offers a lot of connectivity.


I never said MAD doesn't offer a lot of connections, I said they are inferior as a hub compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA, which is true. Furthermore, you are concentrating purely on the US point of sale while neglecting the other side. UA and LH are definitely that strong on the Europe-US market exactly because they seem to fight for all passengers and not just those who are willing to pay $1.000 to fly from New York to Morocco during the summer months.

As for the destinations you mentioned, look at their coverage from competing hubs with a much better location. If UA wants to sell SPU or TLV then they can and they have far more options than AA could ever have.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:19 am

fraT wrote:
Blerg wrote:
In summer FRA turns into a zoo. It's not uncommon to sit in the plane for 40 minutes waiting for a gate. I was there about ten days ago and a United B772 was parked at a remote stand from where passengers were bused to the terminal. Once inside that overcrowded concrete palace you are faced with another mess and the fact that FRA is ugly and outdated doesn't help either (unless you are flying from the few fancy gates at the new terminal).
All in all, it wouldn't be unwise for United to look at other airports such as VIE or ATH to relieve some of the pressure from FRA. MUC is also great but its network and frequencies require some additional work.

Same applies for American Airlines which heavily relies on the overcrowded LHR. Then again, they don't have a choice as oneworld doesn't have another partner with a better location. RIP AB.

Delta is in the best position as they have both CDG and AMS which are both located at the very beginning on Europe and where they can make the most of Air France's, KLM's and Transavia's network.

So yes, maybe it's lucrative for them to rely on these few hubs but for some like UA and FRA or AA and LHR, it wouldn't hurt them to actually look at new ways to funnel their traffic as the overall travel experience can be quite bad and might actually push passengers to look at other, sometimes smaller carriers, that operate year-round flights to the US such as Norwegian, SAS, LOT, Finnair, Aer Lingus...


Interesting, that you are considering DL's position at AMS and especially CDG so much better than UA's in FRA and AA's in LHR. For connections LHR is geographically located even better than AMS and CDG and from an "overcrowded" stand point, I would not consider CDG to be a better place than LHR and FRA. Only disadvantage for AA in LHR is that they are not in the BA Terminal 5 .


I meant that AA is at a disadvantage because, besides LHR, they don't really have an alternative hub to rely upon like DL has with AMS and CDG. MAD is too far south, HEL is way north so that leaves them only with London. United is more flexible as besides FRA they already have a decent presence in MUC and ZRH and can expand in VIE, ATH, CPH or WAW if there is need for it.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:29 am

Blerg wrote:
I never said MAD doesn't offer a lot of connections, I said they are inferior as a hub compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA, which is true. Furthermore, you are concentrating purely on the US point of sale while neglecting the other side. UA and LH are definitely that strong on the Europe-US market exactly because they seem to fight for all passengers and not just those who are willing to pay $1.000 to fly from New York to Morocco during the summer months.

As for the destinations you mentioned, look at their coverage from competing hubs with a much better location. If UA wants to sell SPU or TLV then they can and they have far more options than AA could ever have.


I don't see how they are inferior when key markets for US tourists are in many cases better covered with AA/IB/BA than with LH/UA or AFKL, as some of the examples I mentioned before. You have a geographic bias. IAG is weak in Eastern Europe because most of those markets are small, far from LHR/MAD and low-yielding. Lufthansa is closer to those markets and has more historical VFR links.
 
notconcerned
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:39 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:12 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I never said MAD doesn't offer a lot of connections, I said they are inferior as a hub compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA, which is true. Furthermore, you are concentrating purely on the US point of sale while neglecting the other side. UA and LH are definitely that strong on the Europe-US market exactly because they seem to fight for all passengers and not just those who are willing to pay $1.000 to fly from New York to Morocco during the summer months.

As for the destinations you mentioned, look at their coverage from competing hubs with a much better location. If UA wants to sell SPU or TLV then they can and they have far more options than AA could ever have.


I don't see how they are inferior when key markets for US tourists are in many cases better covered with AA/IB/BA than with LH/UA or AFKL, as some of the examples I mentioned before. You have a geographic bias. IAG is weak in Eastern Europe because most of those markets are small, far from LHR/MAD and low-yielding. Lufthansa is closer to those markets and has more historical VFR links.


MAD certainly has the connections and it works very well as a hub. But if you compare the feed that AA provides to MAD vs. LHR, it's clear that AA is either not utilizing it or is not interested in using MAD as a key hub. AA flies to MAD from 4 destinations vs. 8 destinations to LHR. Even IB's US footprint is only 5 year round destinations. Expanding the comparison, DL flies from 11 destinations to AMS and UA funnels traffic through 3 major hubs (BRU/FRA/MUC).
 
Blerg
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:34 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I never said MAD doesn't offer a lot of connections, I said they are inferior as a hub compared to CDG, AMS, MUC or FRA, which is true. Furthermore, you are concentrating purely on the US point of sale while neglecting the other side. UA and LH are definitely that strong on the Europe-US market exactly because they seem to fight for all passengers and not just those who are willing to pay $1.000 to fly from New York to Morocco during the summer months.

As for the destinations you mentioned, look at their coverage from competing hubs with a much better location. If UA wants to sell SPU or TLV then they can and they have far more options than AA could ever have.


I don't see how they are inferior when key markets for US tourists are in many cases better covered with AA/IB/BA than with LH/UA or AFKL, as some of the examples I mentioned before. You have a geographic bias. IAG is weak in Eastern Europe because most of those markets are small, far from LHR/MAD and low-yielding. Lufthansa is closer to those markets and has more historical VFR links.


Yes, Lufthansa is closer meaning they also have to compete with cars, buses, trains, highways, minibuses... for the VFR passengers. The UK is further away, on top of being an island, meaning flying there is much more convenient than the alternative. BA might be weak in eastern Europe but I think it has more to do with slot issues at home rather than a lack of market. There are a lot of eastern Europeans living within LHR's catchment area.

As for MAD, please note that we are talking about two different things. You seem to be speaking exclusively about US tourists while I am speaking about all passenger types put together on both sides, not just one.
 
factsonly
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:38 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
I don't see how they are inferior when key markets for US tourists are in many cases better covered with AA/IB/BA than with LH/UA or AFKL, as some of the examples I mentioned before. You have a geographic bias. IAG is weak in Eastern Europe because most of those markets are small, far from LHR/MAD and low-yielding. Lufthansa is closer to those markets and has more historical VFR links.


Let the airline and hub data speak for themselves:

- LH from FRA serves 90 European destinations, plus 15 domestic = 110 total
- KL from AMS serves 90 European destinations, plus 0 domestic = 90 total
- BA from LHR serves 69 European destinations, plus 8 domestic = 77 total
- IB from MAD serves 64 European destinations, plus 28 domestic = 92 total
- AF from CDG serves 60 European destinations, plus 19 domestic = 79 total
 
Joost
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:27 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:01 pm

babastud wrote:
AMS is a popular destination for tourism from SFO and vice-versa. Both places are well respected and popular places to visit especially during the summer months. Demand is very good from both ends, and UA should do well on this route even though there is plenty of capacity. The yields have been good for KLM and getting better over the years. UA will be competition, but I don't see KLM cutting the 2nd daily, maybe in the winter? but at least I see them keeping it in the summer for sure.


KLM isn't flying double daily, and certainly not year round.

Actually the route AMS-SFO has seen gradual increases during the last year, both summer and winter. From memory:

S18: 11 weekly: 7x 744 + 4x 789
W17: daily 789 (first winter it's daily)
S17: 9 weekly: 7x 744 + 2x 789 (first summer it's more than 1x daily)
W16: 3x 332 + 3x 333
S16: daily 744

In the years before, winter service was 5x weekly 763 or M11 so the daily 789 is already quite a capacity increase
 
User avatar
Loew
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:00 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:42 am

fightforlove wrote:
Loew wrote:
fightforlove wrote:
Any possibility of United adding an ORD-PRG service? CSA used to come to ORD, since then nothing.


Sorry but CSA never operated ORD. Only JFK, EWR, YYZ and YUL.


No, they also went to ORD, though it's been many years. Some of my ORD photography friends were recently posting some old pics of CSA planes at ORD.


Could be charter, but there were no regular flights to ORD operated by CSA.
Last edited by Loew on Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Loew
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:00 pm

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:47 am

Loew wrote:
fightforlove wrote:
Loew wrote:

Sorry but CSA never operated ORD. Only JFK, EWR, YYZ and YUL.


No, they also went to ORD, though it's been many years. Some of my ORD photography friends were recently posting some old pics of CSA planes at ORD.


Could be charter, but there were no regular flights to ORD operated by CSA. Then again, when talking about CSA I mean Czech airlines and I believe old CSA as Czechoslovak airlines used to fly to ORD.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4753
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: United Announces EWR-PRG, EWR-NAP, SFO-AMS

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:53 am

PRG should be an easy fill for three months in summer. Plenty of vacationers to fill those seats. Good route for united when they have some slack in the system, if that changes look for this to go. Great leisure route ,but the problem is very little business demand so can't be more than a summer fling.

BUD I would put in the same boat , summer doable but is it worth all the logistics to fly a route for three months with all leisure vacationers onnoard.

Who is online

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