LAXdude1023 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

All of those factors represent small demand overall, combined with a tech sector that is in the early innings of a substantial pull back, combined with a long, thin route. AA's experience on LAX-EZE has shown the market isn't there. Argentina's economy, at 100% inflation, also a factor in why such a route is off the table.

The thing I'm wondering is, why are West Coast-South America flights on US carriers always failing compared to let's say, Texas or East Coast-South America? Is it just because more like the better services of LatAm carriers over US carriers to and from the West Coast?

An easy way to think of it is that pretty much all the demand to South America is East of the Mississippi with really only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston being exceptions.

But in the case of SFO, the market skews to only two destinations: GRU and LIM. For LAX, the mass market is there but the fares suck. IAH is bigger than SFO but smaller than LAX to South America, but the fares are much higher and the geography is good for connections.

In the case of DFW, its just such a huge hub that it can make South America work but even it struggles. Its only daily year round flights to South America are GRU and BOG. SCL and EZE are less than daily in the summer and LIM and UIO were canned.

East of the Mississippi, ATL-South America isn't huge (it is bigger than DFW-South America), but it is very well located to capture markets from the Northeast and Central Florida to South America and it has a massive number of flights to feed them. But even it cant support GIG year round.

The true prizes to South America are South Florida and NYC.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

DBKissORD wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the third ORD-LHR round trip has disappeared for June July and August schedule but returns in September. It was available recently and disappeared. Seems odd for the busy summer travel season. I thought United was all in on LHR this summer. Is it a slots issue with other frequency increases?

Pretty sure London has instituted a passenger cap, so United can’t fly all that it wants to to LHR. My ch like AMS and how IAD was the sacrificial flight.

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

VC10er wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Can the 787-10 do LAX/SFO to LHR and other European destinations?

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.[/quot

Interesting, thanks!

I remember that United used the -10 to South Africa from EWR. Is that a 12 hour flight nonstop? I did it once on SA, an A340 and we stopped in Dakar for fuel. I was frankly surprised to read that the -10 had the legs. I recall that flight felt like forever- but it was likely the woman next to me who wanted to talk the whole way!

STT757 wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but a few years ago (2016?) my morning EWR-MCO was held at the gate for connecting passengers from Sao Paulo. It was not an insignificant number who made the connection.

VC10er wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but a few years ago (2016?) my morning EWR-MCO was held at the gate for connecting passengers from Sao Paulo. It was not an insignificant number who made the connection.

Not crazy at all. Almost every Brazilian will make it to Disney World. It’s almost a right of passage. My other half is Brazilian and every time I ask him where he wants to go on vacation he says “Disney Worrrd” - and he’s been about 6 times!!!

CriticalPoint wrote:

VC10er wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Yes but it’s right on the edge of max payload range. It has the fuel capacity but may not have the ZFW to make it. Also will most likely not be able to carry any extra cargo.

Right now 12 hours is the top end of a -10.[/quot

Interesting, thanks!

I remember that United used the -10 to South Africa from EWR. Is that a 12 hour flight nonstop? I did it once on SA, an A340 and we stopped in Dakar for fuel. I was frankly surprised to read that the -10 had the legs. I recall that flight felt like forever- but it was likely the woman next to me who wanted to talk the whole way!

The -10 can fly as far as the -9. It just has to sacrifice people and cargo for gas. The -10 to JNB is an equipment sub so even if the flight was full for a -9 it still has 50 open seats. Basically a weight restriction

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

fun2fly wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Starting to see more 737 max AC swapping in where a 737NG was scheduled -- anecdotal example yesterday from PSP to ORD. Well past the days of free changes if you're booked on a max and uncomfortable

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Happened to me today, 73G scheduled ORD>CLE replaced by 7M9 - nice as I scored an upgrade b/c of it. I was amazed at how many scratches and black marks are on the ceiling from the roller bags hitting the ceiling when stowing them with the 1 bag per person sized overheads.

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

fun2fly wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

Oh man. Was this an older frame or did it have the NEXT treatment?

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

Older frame as noted. I think the a/c went CLE>ORD>CLE>ORD>CLE 2x RT's. Oddly enough, it was an EWR based crew. There was a 738 sitting at the D gates unused when I arrived also.

The main thing I noticed was how quiet it was sitting in 5F - almost no engine noise heard.

jonahsachs wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

For the record, two 737MAX9 flights today ORD-CLE, both with 2020 build, pre-NEXT aircraft N27520

Older frame as noted. I think the a/c went CLE>ORD>CLE>ORD>CLE 2x RT's. Oddly enough, it was an EWR based crew. There was a 738 sitting at the D gates unused when I arrived also.

The main thing I noticed was how quiet it was sitting in 5F - almost no engine noise heard.

Does this wear and tear seem unusual for a ~4 old plane?

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

That is kind of surprising to me because Im thought there had to be demand for people going from Chicago to the Capital of Illinois. But I've not really looked into that...

adamblang wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

UA pulling out of SPI. Cutting at least ORD from ERI.
June 2

https://www.yourerie.com/news/local-new ... l-airport/

That is kind of surprising to me because Im thought there had to be demand for people going from Chicago to the Capital of Illinois. But I've not really looked into that...

Amtrak runs 5 trains a day each way between Chicago and Springfield. It's a 3 hour journey without having to deal with TSA and without having to spend 45-75 minutes getting downtown from O'Hare. TSA + flying + getting to/from airport is roughly a wash compared to the train. And Amtrak advance purchase fares are $19.

If the United-Amtrak codeshare was still in place, I'd suggest all the Amtrak trains that originate/terminate in Union Station really should originate/terminate at the O'Hare Metra station to allow air<>rail connections onto shorthaul Amtrak Midwest services.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

Thing is there are a lot of markets UA has (especially out of DEN) that can’t anything more than a 50 seater 2x daily. Especially with no answer to DFW or ATL, the 50 seaters have to be around even if they are at reduced usage.

codc10 wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Lamp1009 wrote:

Wasn't the CRJ-550 supposed to be the answer to this?

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Yes, and it generally has been out of EWR, which has completely replaced all single-cabin RJ flying. If/when GoJet is able to fully staff its CR5s, we will probably see it do the same out of ORD, but they aren't even close to doing that right now, with nearly half the fleet parked due to a lack of pilots.

The CR5, as artificially weight-restricted, doesn't have the performance to do much out of DEN.

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

Jshank83 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Problem is the CRJ550s are too premium heavy to really replace CR2/E145 flying

60% of the seats are F/Y+, which is unrealistic to fill from small markets.

And they don't even maintain the benefits of being premium heavy. I've flown on the CR5 a half dozen times now, and I have never been on a flight with it long enough to use their F bar. Some flights are so short they don't even serve water in F. That might as well be on an E145. The only big benefit they have is on carry on storage.

145s/200s don't have wifi/entertainment and 550s do. That to me is the bigger thing.

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

IAD-HND set to begin tomorrow March 25; UA's first IAD-Asia flight since the pandemic.

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

codc10 wrote:

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

The economics of serving those markets changes when regional pilots are commanding near-mainline wages. I think it’s good for the pilots, but proves to be some harsh reality for many communities that are in driving distance of larger airports and don’t generate the yield premium and/or volume to support larger jet flying from the mainline carriers.

The RJ model is predicated on low-cost labor. Without it, unit costs make the entire scheme unprofitable.

PoorSailorsAir wrote:

sbaflyer wrote:

adamblang wrote:

They've said as much in earnings calls and interviews. Markets will either be upgauged at reduced frequency or exited if they cannot support an upgauge.

I understand that, but I wonder if they will regret that outlook. A few years ago Kirby was all-in on adding smaller markets to increase connecting flow. That strategy seems to have changed significantly since Covid. At some point, they will need these passengers to fill all the 737 and A321 on order.

I don’t believe there’s a way to regret this, as running these flights is becoming impossible. It really isn’t a strategy change, it’s a new fact of the industry. The economics have changed, they don’t have the staffing, and there’s no replacement aircraft available for the aging small RJ’s.

If you want to know what will happen to the non EAS cities that can’t support a larger plane, look at what Delta has done. They will lose service all together.

Sadly the next few years will not be kind to these small cities. I do hope some outside the box thinking can happen with triangle routes like Skywest is doing with EAS cities in the upper midwest.