Flights are out for sale on britishairways.com. Similar timings to PIT.

WA707atMSP wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I don't get the assertion that DL is now suddenly going to pack-up and abandon the CVG-CDG route simply because a new competitor, with BA is starting CVG-LHR.
A.net tends to overreact that all the sudden a new competitor is going to waltz and suddenly steal all the marketshare.

Could DL drop CVG-CDG at some point? Sure anything is possible.
However DL still has a portfolio of non-hub routes out of CVG and still has a share of loyalty in the market.

The BA CVG-LHR route is competing to pull traffic that is connecting to LHR over other hubs.
There is traffic on AA connecting over ORD, PHL, JFK, CLT.
Not to mention UA and DL traffic connecting over their hubs.

There is enough onward TATL / European demand from the CVG region to support both flights.

In many ways, the comments on this thread mirror what we saw on ANet when DL added RDU-CDG. Many people felt that, because AA no longer had a hub in RDU, DL would take all the transatlantic traffic from AA, and AA would drop RDU-LHR.

DL's and AA's transatlantic flights have coexisted at RDU for several years, and I think that's what we'll see at CVG, too.

If CVG-CDG survived DL downsizing CVG from nearly 700 flights a day--which include I believe at least 6 flights to Europe at one point--to what it has become now, I think it will be fine.

SLCaviation wrote:

N292UX wrote:

SLCaviation wrote:

Im 90% sure the route is LHR on BA and 100% sure DL will drop CDG

DL has a bunch of corporate contracts on the CDG flight and the pax payload may not be the most important part of the plane - often is what is being carried underneath in the cargo hold.

Not to mention they just upgauged the route to a 764.

That was all before BA… now everything is different

Also true, but also worth noting how DL has a long history with defending their "territory" from competitors like this. Just look at how DL often responds to other carriers adding new routes out of ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC. Now obviously CVG isn't those places anymore but it is still a rather important station for DL that they may still view as worth defending. Also additionally worth noting that even with BA entering at 4-5x weekly, that's basically the same frequency of TATL service CVG had pre-COVID so still not expecting CDG to immediately be cut.

An excellent addition! Way to go CVG!

Watching the announcement now. The Lieutenant Governor is speaking - he did directly acknowledge that CVG beat out other cities for this flight (no specifics given). I am getting the vibe that there are subsidies involved here.

2eng2efficient wrote:

Watching the announcement now. The Lieutenant Governor is speaking - he did directly acknowledge that CVG beat out other cities for this flight (no specifics given). I am getting the vibe that there are subsidies involved here.

Subsidies were given beyond a doubt

Congratulations to CVG, and to BA! I hope Speedbird has a long and successful operation in this Ohio city!

Another destination now perfectly suited to new intercontinental service by the 787.

bb

IND and MCI salt. In the end, subsidies and business commitments are what matter for tertiary cities.

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Isn't it a bit late for TATL announcements? Those seem to be Sept-Oct reveals for the next Summer.



It'd be a blow for both CMH, but perhaps bigger for IND, which was explicitly named at one point as on BA's radar.

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

Serious question. Unless you're looking to travel to London, what's the advantage of having BA, beyond the perceived prestige of having TATL service?

Unless London is your final destination, you're still connecting. Why does it matter if that's in London or in Chicago/NYC/Boston/etc?

When I go to Europe I've always found it easier to connect through the US both ways, especially coming home. For instance if Im going idk Rome to Kansas City.... I've always found it more comfortable to do the connection stateside. For instance if I go Rome-Chicago-MCI. If I miss the connection in Chicago I have tons of options and chances to grab a new flight that day. If that was Rome-London-KC and I miss the London connect Im more or less boned for a day, and if not Im getting tossed on a NYC connect from there or some other option that adds another stop.

Ive had that exact thing happen to me on DL trying to go Venice-Amsterdam-Orlando on KL and DL. KL flight delayed to AMS, missed the Delta flight and it cost me 12+ hours in AMS. Only benefit I see is after that long flight you're already home.



Only benefit I see

bchandl wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

Serious question. Unless you're looking to travel to London, what's the advantage of having BA, beyond the perceived prestige of having TATL service?

Unless London is your final destination, you're still connecting. Why does it matter if that's in London or in Chicago/NYC/Boston/etc?

When I go to Europe I've always found it easier to connect through the US both ways, especially coming home. For instance if Im going idk Rome to Kansas City.... I've always found it more comfortable to do the connection stateside. For instance if I go Rome-Chicago-MCI. If I miss the connection in Chicago I have tons of options and chances to grab a new flight that day. If that was Rome-London-KC and I miss the London connect Im more or less boned for a day, and if not Im getting tossed on a NYC connect from there or some other option that adds another stop.

Ive had that exact thing happen to me on DL trying to go Venice-Amsterdam-Orlando on KL and DL. KL flight delayed to AMS, missed the Delta flight and it cost me 12+ hours in AMS. Only benefit I see is after that long flight you're already home.



Only benefit I see

I mean it depends on where you’re going I suppose. My home airport is IAH and I don’t really mess with domestic airports either way. On the way out I prefer to arrive later in the day. A connection in LHR, MUC, etc. means that my onward flight would be later and I can get in late afternoon, have dinner, and go to bed.

For the return, I hate going through customs and rechecking. I just want to go through customs, get in an Uber and be home in 30 minutes.

If I lived in CVG I would use the DL flight to CDG or this new BA flight. Of course cost can change anything.

BA744PHX wrote:

2eng2efficient wrote:

Watching the announcement now. The Lieutenant Governor is speaking - he did directly acknowledge that CVG beat out other cities for this flight (no specifics given). I am getting the vibe that there are subsidies involved here.

Subsidies were given beyond a doubt

And I am sure they will be pretty high seeing they most likely had to be higher than IND/MCI

bchandl wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

Serious question. Unless you're looking to travel to London, what's the advantage of having BA, beyond the perceived prestige of having TATL service?

Unless London is your final destination, you're still connecting. Why does it matter if that's in London or in Chicago/NYC/Boston/etc?

When I go to Europe I've always found it easier to connect through the US both ways, especially coming home. For instance if Im going idk Rome to Kansas City.... I've always found it more comfortable to do the connection stateside. For instance if I go Rome-Chicago-MCI. If I miss the connection in Chicago I have tons of options and chances to grab a new flight that day. If that was Rome-London-KC and I miss the London connect Im more or less boned for a day, and if not Im getting tossed on a NYC connect from there or some other option that adds another stop.

Ive had that exact thing happen to me on DL trying to go Venice-Amsterdam-Orlando on KL and DL. KL flight delayed to AMS, missed the Delta flight and it cost me 12+ hours in AMS. Only benefit I see is after that long flight you're already home.



Only benefit I see

This opens up a lot of one stop options that prior to getting a flight to mainland Europe require 2 stops. Saves a lot of time not having the 2nd layover.

Also, when going to Europe your argument works opposite. If you want to fly MCI-XXX-Venice, there are going to be a lot more flights to Venice from your Europe stopover than your US stopover if something gets delayed.

Congrats to Cincinnati — and all their neighbour cities. This flight penetrates a super size triangle of large metros, with Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville and Cincinnati all effectively served, along with Dayton and Lexington. So potentially rich pickings for BA.

While I thought Indy would get this service next year instead, mid term I think serving both Indy AND Cincinnati should be viable, especially as DL successfully did just that pre-pandemic. But also as still-unserved Indy clearly has demand for its own flight. Much talk on motorsport and business connections, plus it has its own catchment area.

That said, in the light of today’s announcement, I do now wonder if BA *really* were about to launch Indy last year, even though it’s public knowledge they applied for slots. Though it is possible incentives swung them into CVG’s arms over Indy for next year.

For 2024, given recent reporting, you’d have to think MCI might be favourite, especially as BA may want to launch well before the World Cup, but then again it is plausible Indy’s turn could be next, with MCI to follow in ‘25, or maybe also for ‘24, given they serve totally different regions.

I see the BA CVG-LHR addition as a piece (big piece, but still a piece) of AAs overall strategy in growing their heartland marketshare.

Historically DL has enjoyed a lot of CVG loyalty, but in the last couple of years DLs focus has moved elsewhere. Point being, there is an opportunity for AA to come in and win the market. And while some may scoff at the prestige of being #1 in CVG, there is still a lot of truth to the old airline adage that money is made flying to boring places. (And don’t take that as a knock, I happen to like “boring” places)

Frankly I think DL has so overextended themselves that they can’t really defend CVG, even with that historical loyalty advantage (and I mostly mean that on the domestic front). I see the BA LHR flight as the capstone to all the work AA is doing to win over the domestic business market. So congratulations to CVG flyers. It will be interesting if DL puts up any fight at all, or if CVG-CDG becomes PIT-CDG 2.0

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Isn't it a bit late for TATL announcements? Those seem to be Sept-Oct reveals for the next Summer.



It'd be a blow for both CMH, but perhaps bigger for IND, which was explicitly named at one point as on BA's radar.

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

I feel like the window is closing on these two cities. BA was likely their best hope. DL seems to have lost interest in point-to-point routes, Aer Lingus/Icelandair are too small, Condor is giving up on mid-sized markets and LH is too good for them. Both offer new terminals, good PDEW, an incentives slush fund and still no bites. Pity

You can’t even fill planes to LaGuardia and you want transatlantic service? No way LHR or CDG is justified from MCI.

evank516 wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

I feel like the window is closing on these two cities. BA was likely their best hope. DL seems to have lost interest in point-to-point routes, Aer Lingus/Icelandair are too small, Condor is giving up on mid-sized markets and LH is too good for them. Both offer new terminals, good PDEW, an incentives slush fund and still no bites. Pity

You can’t even fill planes to LaGuardia and you want transatlantic service? No way LHR or CDG is justified from MCI.

In fairness, there are a lot of markets that can’t fill planes to LGA these days. Maybe it’s the other way around.

evank516 wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

I feel like the window is closing on these two cities. BA was likely their best hope. DL seems to have lost interest in point-to-point routes, Aer Lingus/Icelandair are too small, Condor is giving up on mid-sized markets and LH is too good for them. Both offer new terminals, good PDEW, an incentives slush fund and still no bites. Pity

You can’t even fill planes to LaGuardia and you want transatlantic service? No way LHR or CDG is justified from MCI.

KC has five airlines competing on the NYC run (AA, B6, DL, WN & UA) with only B6 operating once per day. No comparison. Ridiculous comment and even more so to assume all five carriers should post full loads for every flight. Research the PDEW. You should know better of all people.

kavok wrote:

I see the BA CVG-LHR addition as a piece (big piece, but still a piece) of AAs overall strategy in growing their heartland marketshare.

Historically DL has enjoyed a lot of CVG loyalty, but in the last couple of years DLs focus has moved elsewhere. Point being, there is an opportunity for AA to come in and win the market. And while some may scoff at the prestige of being #1 in CVG, there is still a lot of truth to the old airline adage that money is made flying to boring places. (And don’t take that as a knock, I happen to like “boring” places)

Frankly I think DL has so overextended themselves that they can’t really defend CVG, even with that historical loyalty advantage (and I mostly mean that on the domestic front). I see the BA LHR flight as the capstone to all the work AA is doing to win over the domestic business market. So congratulations to CVG flyers. It will be interesting if DL puts up any fight at all, or if CVG-CDG becomes PIT-CDG 2.0

This does make a lot of sense. DL has in fact given up a lot of the CVG origin traffic to UA and AA (I’m looking at IAH, SFO, ORD, DFW, CLT, PHL, RDU, etc. all gone). But I’m still very surprised that they chose CVG over a market with no competition altogether: IND or MCI or CMH (or even STL).

If DL’s CVG-CDG won’t be subsidized, but BA’s CVG-LHR will be subsidized, that changes the equation completely. Moreover, it is quite telling that DL only plans to operate CVG-CDG 3x weekly (while RDU-CDG will become daily). This sounds too similar to the PIT-CDG story to me…

I wonder if DL will move the CVG-CDG to IND-CDG (and take IND’s subsidy?)

evank516 wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

zackary747 wrote:

As an IND traveler, I will be furious if CVG were to get BA before IND. The MCI people should be furious as well.

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

I feel like the window is closing on these two cities. BA was likely their best hope. DL seems to have lost interest in point-to-point routes, Aer Lingus/Icelandair are too small, Condor is giving up on mid-sized markets and LH is too good for them. Both offer new terminals, good PDEW, an incentives slush fund and still no bites. Pity

You can’t even fill planes to LaGuardia and you want transatlantic service? No way LHR or CDG is justified from MCI.

CVG has 2x weekly service to SFO. It’s not like the airport is killing it domestically.

Which LT Governor spoke, Ohio or Kentucky?

Whomever up above said this flight will draw from Columbus, really? It's not that much closer than PIT and driving through Cinci across the Ohio River can be tough at certain times of day.

LeVerdad wrote:

IND and MCI salt. In the end, subsidies and business commitments are what matter for tertiary cities.

The hyperbole is a bit funny.

Having lived in IND in the past, and currently living in a city with lots of nonstop international options, I think the importance of these nonstop international options from secondary cities is becoming a bit overstated.

The $ needed to acquire one less-than-daily TATL flight could be used to bolster likely over a dozen domestic routes.

Even just an extra frequency on a TATL is getting incentive $ (eg PIT)

These secondary cities warrant service, but 1 or 2 year differences in when they get announced aren’t that big of a deal IMO.

I’ll be interested to see the $ Ohio/Kentucky are giving and what happens with DL, as BA mentioned CVG-Paris was a CNX market that they hoped to tap into with CVG-LHR

Jshank83 wrote:

bchandl wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

We're already b*tching in KC. IND and MCI are about to learn a valuable lesson. Incentives only go so far, there are only so many cities that make sense to add, airlines prefer proven markets and we're reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of airlines adding new long haul routes. Where's the cutoff?

Serious question. Unless you're looking to travel to London, what's the advantage of having BA, beyond the perceived prestige of having TATL service?

Unless London is your final destination, you're still connecting. Why does it matter if that's in London or in Chicago/NYC/Boston/etc?

When I go to Europe I've always found it easier to connect through the US both ways, especially coming home. For instance if Im going idk Rome to Kansas City.... I've always found it more comfortable to do the connection stateside. For instance if I go Rome-Chicago-MCI. If I miss the connection in Chicago I have tons of options and chances to grab a new flight that day. If that was Rome-London-KC and I miss the London connect Im more or less boned for a day, and if not Im getting tossed on a NYC connect from there or some other option that adds another stop.

Ive had that exact thing happen to me on DL trying to go Venice-Amsterdam-Orlando on KL and DL. KL flight delayed to AMS, missed the Delta flight and it cost me 12+ hours in AMS. Only benefit I see is after that long flight you're already home.



Only benefit I see

This opens up a lot of one stop options that prior to getting a flight to mainland Europe require 2 stops. Saves a lot of time not having the 2nd layover.

Also, when going to Europe your argument works opposite. If you want to fly MCI-XXX-Venice, there are going to be a lot more flights to Venice from your Europe stopover than your US stopover if something gets delayed.

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Cubsrule wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

bchandl wrote:

Serious question. Unless you're looking to travel to London, what's the advantage of having BA, beyond the perceived prestige of having TATL service?

Unless London is your final destination, you're still connecting. Why does it matter if that's in London or in Chicago/NYC/Boston/etc?

When I go to Europe I've always found it easier to connect through the US both ways, especially coming home. For instance if Im going idk Rome to Kansas City.... I've always found it more comfortable to do the connection stateside. For instance if I go Rome-Chicago-MCI. If I miss the connection in Chicago I have tons of options and chances to grab a new flight that day. If that was Rome-London-KC and I miss the London connect Im more or less boned for a day, and if not Im getting tossed on a NYC connect from there or some other option that adds another stop.

Ive had that exact thing happen to me on DL trying to go Venice-Amsterdam-Orlando on KL and DL. KL flight delayed to AMS, missed the Delta flight and it cost me 12+ hours in AMS. Only benefit I see is after that long flight you're already home.



Only benefit I see

This opens up a lot of one stop options that prior to getting a flight to mainland Europe require 2 stops. Saves a lot of time not having the 2nd layover.

Also, when going to Europe your argument works opposite. If you want to fly MCI-XXX-Venice, there are going to be a lot more flights to Venice from your Europe stopover than your US stopover if something gets delayed.

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Re STR I think that late (and one of just two) daily departure from LHR at 17.00 you mention is likely due to the issues we’ve been having here in Europe with staffing post-Covid. As a result, many intra-European flights have been cut.

Pre-pandemic STR had (iirc) 3 BA flights per day to LHR, including at least one morning flight, in common with most other significant destinations.

This situation will change, but it could be S23 or even as late as S24 before things are truly back to how they were pre-Covid.

ncflyer wrote:

Which LT Governor spoke, Ohio or Kentucky?

Whomever up above said this flight will draw from Columbus, really? It's not that much closer than PIT and driving through Cinci across the Ohio River can be tough at certain times of day.

I'm East of Columbus and am not driving to PIT, CLE, or CVG for a TATL nonstop. Others' mileage may vary.

TheLion wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

This opens up a lot of one stop options that prior to getting a flight to mainland Europe require 2 stops. Saves a lot of time not having the 2nd layover.

Also, when going to Europe your argument works opposite. If you want to fly MCI-XXX-Venice, there are going to be a lot more flights to Venice from your Europe stopover than your US stopover if something gets delayed.

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Re STR I think that late (and one of just two) daily departure from LHR at 17.00 you mention is likely due to the issues we’ve been having here in Europe with staffing post-Covid. As a result, many intra-European flights have been cut.

Pre-pandemic STR had (iirc) 3 BA flights per day to LHR, including at least one morning flight, in common with most other significant destinations.

This situation will change, but it could be S23 or even as late as S24 before things are truly back to how they were pre-Covid.

It's not the frequency as much as the schedule. If there isn't a late morning or early afternoon flight, the connection is going to be sub-optimal (and I've slept a few times during COVID but I think the former morning STR flight was too early to accommodate most TATL connections).

Cubsrule wrote:

TheLion wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Re STR I think that late (and one of just two) daily departure from LHR at 17.00 you mention is likely due to the issues we’ve been having here in Europe with staffing post-Covid. As a result, many intra-European flights have been cut.

Pre-pandemic STR had (iirc) 3 BA flights per day to LHR, including at least one morning flight, in common with most other significant destinations.

This situation will change, but it could be S23 or even as late as S24 before things are truly back to how they were pre-Covid.

It's not the frequency as much as the schedule. If there isn't a late morning or early afternoon flight, the connection is going to be sub-optimal (and I've slept a few times during COVID but I think the former morning STR flight was too early to accommodate most TATL connections).

Yes that’s logical. My pint is that I’d hope they’d restore a morning STR flight in time. Whether that would be at a reasonable hour for connections we’ll have to see.

CVGspottekass wrote:

I could definitely see British Airways announcing LHR service since they have a slot that can be filled and they plan on adding a U.S route. Virgin Atlantic also plans to add some new USA markets so that could be a possibility as well.

I wish Virgin would commence service out of BWI! Much easier and more convenient than schlepping to IAD! I work and fly out of BWI. Without traffic and that is an extreme rarity. Your talking a 60 to 90 minute drive.

I absolutely believe that network of cities surrounding Cincy played a major role in obtaining this flight, as TheLion stated above.

johnboy wrote:

I absolutely believe that network of cities surrounding Cincy played a major role in obtaining this flight, as TheLion stated above.

Absolutely. CVG population + Indy, Cbus, Lville, Lexington and Dayton/Greater SW Ohio metro. Their all less than 2hr drives and a catchment of 10+m people.... and all people who aren't shlepping to DTW to catch a similar flight on DL.

who is going to make the drive from another city when a connecting flight from your city is just as fast and you do not have to drive to Cincy

So VS and Icelandair left with potential US announcements this cycle?

strangeplanes wrote:

So VS and Icelandair left with potential US announcements this cycle?

Where did you hear about Icelandair?

Trk1 wrote:

who is going to make the drive from another city when a connecting flight from your city is just as fast and you do not have to drive to Cincy

When I lived in ADD and my in-laws in DTW, we drove from and to ORD for the ET flight rather than a UA codeshare to ORD.

Connections carry risks, for both passengers and luggage missing connections. The transfer at ORD from T5 to a domestic flight is not pleasant.

Growing up near CVG, my family would drive to CMH to save money. I imagine some people in Columbus will drive to PIT or CVG for the ease of non stop.

Trk1 wrote:

who is going to make the drive from another city when a connecting flight from your city is just as fast and you do not have to drive to Cincy

Living in Lexington this IS something I would use. We flew Wow a few years ago to London from CVG and this would be a huge upgrade. A lot of people still just want to go to London. From Lex this is clearly the best option. Excited this is happening. Out of the blue to me.

N292UX wrote:

SLCaviation wrote:

Im 90% sure the route is LHR on BA and 100% sure DL will drop CDG

DL has a bunch of corporate contracts on the CDG flight and the pax payload may not be the most important part of the plane - often is what is being carried underneath in the cargo hold.

Contrary to popular a.net belief...cargo makes up <2% of a pax airline's revenue. It's a nice way to make some $ on unused payload and that's about it. There's a reason most pax airlines don't bother with cargo fleets anymore. Plus CVG is already an air hub for DHL and others.

Trk1 wrote:

who is going to make the drive from another city when a connecting flight from your city is just as fast and you do not have to drive to Cincy

There are people that would do it, but I'd say more than an hour or two away that % of people drops significantly, and at three hours away it's close to 0%. This is especially true if there's an option that's shorter, even if it involves a (mainline) connection. Usually connecting flights are also cheaper, often significantly so.

Now if it's a smaller airport (i.e. LEX/DAY where it's likely to be an RJ flight to another airport) it makes more sense to make the drive (at least to me).

Yossarian22 wrote:

When I lived in ADD and my in-laws in DTW, we drove from and to ORD for the ET flight rather than a UA codeshare to ORD.

Connections carry risks, for both passengers and luggage missing connections. The transfer at ORD from T5 to a domestic flight is not pleasant.

Wow, I would never do that. I value my time too much to add 10 hours of driving roundtrip (on a good day). To each their own.

WA707atMSP wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I don't get the assertion that DL is now suddenly going to pack-up and abandon the CVG-CDG route simply because a new competitor, with BA is starting CVG-LHR.
A.net tends to overreact that all the sudden a new competitor is going to waltz and suddenly steal all the marketshare.

Could DL drop CVG-CDG at some point? Sure anything is possible.
However DL still has a portfolio of non-hub routes out of CVG and still has a share of loyalty in the market.

The BA CVG-LHR route is competing to pull traffic that is connecting to LHR over other hubs.
There is traffic on AA connecting over ORD, PHL, JFK, CLT.
Not to mention UA and DL traffic connecting over their hubs.

There is enough onward TATL / European demand from the CVG region to support both flights.

In many ways, the comments on this thread mirror what we saw on ANet when DL added RDU-CDG. Many people felt that, because AA no longer had a hub in RDU, DL would take all the transatlantic traffic from AA, and AA would drop RDU-LHR.

DL's and AA's transatlantic flights have coexisted at RDU for several years, and I think that's what we'll see at CVG, too.

Well the traffic numbers are completely different… RDU’s full traffic numbers to Europe were reported as late as 2014, and had 1,083 PDEW to Europe- not factoring in new growth in population and corporate presence since and cargo loads. CVG’s loads to Europe according to the article is a mere 432 PDEW

Congratulations to CVG and BA. Expected IND but they are so close to ORD. But then, BNA is also near CVG. BA is doing well in booming Nashville.

RDUDDJI wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

When I lived in ADD and my in-laws in DTW, we drove from and to ORD for the ET flight rather than a UA codeshare to ORD.

Connections carry risks, for both passengers and luggage missing connections. The transfer at ORD from T5 to a domestic flight is not pleasant.

Wow, I would never do that. I value my time too much to add 10 hours of driving roundtrip (on a good day). To each their own.

The morning transfer at ORD from domestic to T5 would be quite tight, and at least the time, ORD to ADD was less than daily, so a missed connection could result in a two or three day delay.

Yossarian22 wrote:

The morning transfer at ORD from domestic to T5 would be quite tight, and at least the time, ORD to ADD was less than daily, so a missed connection could result in a two or three day delay.

Ok, but you don't have to transfer at ORD...there's other US cities ET flies to with more frequencies (like IAD).

Cubsrule wrote:

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Porsche or Daimler? I usually fly DL's ATL-STR route when I go over there. Flying to BER next month, and DL's RDU-CDG-BER routing isn't perfect, but it does shave some time off of a double connect that I'd be looking at otherwise. (I don't fly AA).

RDUDDJI wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

In Nashville, I've found our BA flight to open fewer connections to secondary Europe than I had expected. For instance, I do a lot of work with the auto industry, so STR is an important destination for me. BA's first flight to STR is at like 1700, so going through LHR doesn't save time over a double connection. BA has better frequency to cities like Paris and Madrid, but those have lots of options from the States already so there, too, it's not that helpful.

Porsche or Daimler? I usually fly DL's ATL-STR route when I go over there. Flying to BER next month, and DL's RDU-CDG-BER routing isn't perfect, but it does shave some time off of a double connect that I'd be looking at otherwise. (I don't fly AA).

Unfortunately, ATL-STR remains a pandemic casualty at this point.

Cubsrule wrote:

Unfortunately, ATL-STR remains a pandemic casualty at this point.

Didn't realize that. I see now it's scheduled to come back next year, but not daily. Clearly, I haven't been doing as much TATL travel during Covid times.

Er, Kentucky city to be exact. CVG stands for Covington, Kenton county, Kentucky, although the airport is actually in Boone county. Complicated history.

Very exciting news for CVG and the surrounding areas. Nonstop BA to Heathrow. Hope to use the service soon for work.

I am THRILLED that Speedbird is coming to CVG! Now, let's see how American and American Eagle will respond to their large OneWorld partner beginning service to the Greater Cincinnati Tri-State. After all, as I noted in my earlier post, American has claimed that "We will be a force to be reckoned with in Cincinnati."

Springs1816 wrote:

Living in Lexington this IS something I would use. We flew Wow a few years ago to London from CVG and this would be a huge upgrade. A lot of people still just want to go to London. From Lex this is clearly the best option. Excited this is happening.

Yes, and it will benefit Central Kentucky, too! I grew up in Richmond, KY, so I know how the thoroughbred horse industry in Kentucky is intertwined with the same industry in England and Ireland. The Bourbon Trail will benefit, too. There is so much for European visitors to see and enjoy in our beautiful Bluegrass!

LexPassenger wrote:

Er, Kentucky city to be exact. CVG stands for Covington, Kenton county, Kentucky, although the airport is actually in Boone county. Complicated history.

How true! It does confuse many people, but then the second-largest international airport serving New York City is in New Jersey (EWR). CVG is readily accessible by ground, unless you are trying to cross the Brent Spence Bridge during peak traffic times (Hint: Use I-275)

LexPassenger wrote:

Er, Kentucky city to be exact. CVG stands for Covington, Kenton county, Kentucky, although the airport is actually in Boone county. Complicated history.

CVG=Cincinnati Very Good