How does US do on their USA to Europe flights?

Looking at seating charts it always looks like their flights are full, but their prices always seem to be a bit higher than the other guys. Do they just do a better job at consolidating trips?

Like anything, certain times of the year flights to Europe are full and other times of the year some routes are light. FYI, seat maps are not a good indicator of a flights load factor. For example certain routes are a nightmare to nonrev on as they usually are full, TLV and FCO are prime examples.

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter): How does US do on their USA to Europe flights?

I can't say for systemwide performance, but US have some very valuable niche routes. PHL-MAN is one which instantly springs to mind.

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter): Looking at seating charts it always looks like their flights are full, but their prices always seem to be a bit higher than the other guys. Do they just do a better job at consolidating trips?

What data do you have to support this theory? I'm curious because I manage a corporate travel agency that specializes in TATL travel. In my experience US is the last airline to fill up on the Atlantic. Indeed, they are usually still offering agency bulk tickets even up to 24 hours before some flights ...

Depends on the time of year.

One of the big things that hurts Airways is the general lack of O&D in their gateways to Europe (Philly-London is decent, but they also have British Airways offering more than double US' capacity on this route). If you have a large local base, you (a) protect yields as they don't need to prorate out with a domestic leg and (b) offer a service that is more valuable to higher-paying customers who value the nonstop over a connection.

A passenger going from Raleigh to Paris (in a theoretical world where all connection hubs are equal) wants to get between those two cities and knows they'll have to stop, be it in Atlanta/New York/Boston/Detroit (Delta), Charlotte/Philadelphia (US Airways), Washington/Newark (United) or New York/London Heathrow (American/British Airways) - it's all roughly the same, so US doesn't come up as having anything special to offer said passenger.

Meanwhile, in a city such as New York or Washington, said passenger going to Paris has the option of nonstops (and a much larger volume of passengers).

This is why Airways really wanted the American merger to happen - given American's hubs in heavy O&D cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Miami and New York, it will allow them to focus more on the local passengers and improve the yields from there.

I'm not saying Philly and Charlotte are doomed as TATL gateways at all - but there will likely be less emphasis on Charlotte and it will be interesting to watch how JFK and PHL co-exist.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2): I can't say for systemwide performance, but US have some very valuable niche routes. PHL-MAN is one which instantly springs to mind.

US Airways use the A330-300 on the MAN-PHL route and to show how well it does, it was second or third European route of theirs to be flown by the newly delivered aircraft back in the late 90's/early 2000's and has always been flown by this equipment ever since...

I think cargo is a major reason for them using the A330-300, but they don't seem to have any issues filling seats either... When one of these aircraft went tech for a few weeks, a couple of years back, they were operating MAN-PHL twice daily with 757's, which demonstrates the demand.

With the exception of VS who have used 747-400's on their Orlando route, I don't think any other airline flying to the USA operates a larger aircraft year round from MAN...

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 4): I'm not saying Philly and Charlotte are doomed as TATL gateways at all - but there will likely be less emphasis on Charlotte and it will be interesting to watch how JFK and PHL co-exist.

I disagree, and optimistic both CLT and PHL will have a key role as TATL gateways... American doesn't have that huger presence JFK any more, with Jet Blue and Delta being far larger. I can see JFK been used by the newly merged airlines to handle the huge O&D traffic a city like NYC can demand...

I think Philly will be very much act as the North Eastern hub for the new AA, specialising in connecting all the cities in this huge populated region with onward connections to Europe... I wouldn't be surprised if any of the poorer performing existing AA routes out of JFK, which are more reliant upon being fed by connections could be used to PHL too.

Charlotte will be the second largest hub after DFW in the new airline, based upon current figures. I cannot see this changing hugely, and will continue to be a major gateway feeding traffic to the southern USA east of the Mississippi.

I could see CLT beneffint at MIA's expense being more the victim of downsizing, of any of the hubs... It is right in the far corner of the USA, and only really of any use unless you are flying there, or connecting on to Latin America or the Caribbean. If you want to fly onwards in the USA, you will more or less be back tracking on yourself. I will be interested to see if what happens with the Brazilian routes out of CLT, as I think they have gained slots and rights to fly to both Rio and Sao Paulo now.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5): I think Philly will be very much act as the North Eastern hub for the new AA, specialising in connecting all the cities in this huge populated region with onward connections to Europe...

PHL will likely be the northeast U.S. hub for AA+US, for lack of better.

The cities/airports that make up a big fraction of the northeast population already have their own TATL flights: BOS, JFK/EWR, IAD, even PIT. That really means PHL is the aggregator for demand from 2nd/3rd/4th tier airports, and there's little about PHL that gives it a sustainable advantage in that mission.

US serves a lot of tourist summer markets, and has bedrock stability at Star hubs. MAN also. Not sure if they make money at London as US Air.

It will be interesting to see them pivot away from FRA and MUC soon, as they leave Star. Basically the core of their Europe business is being ripped out. Will LHR and MAD be enough?.... my guess is it will be not be as good of a business for US as Star hubs were.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 6): and there's little about PHL that gives it a sustainable advantage in that mission.

It's the go-to for much of NJ and much of PA... a market quite similar to Chicago. And it's theirs.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5):

Miami, downsizing? Man What are you drinking?

I always read that PHL- AMS is weak. Don't even know if it still exists.

I would think US Airways would have decent or high load factors to Europe for the simple reason they only have 2 hubs that support flights to Europe. So instead of having to spread passengers around to multiple hubs like AA, DL and UA does they only have PHL and CLT to feed into and secondly they don't offer as many non stops as the carriers do. Case and point today (April 5, 2013) US Air only has a grand total of 2 flights to LHR one from PHL and the other from CLT where as UA has 5 flights alone from EWR, AA has 4 flights from JFK (not including BA flights) and DL has 3 flights from JFK as well. The other legacies have more flights from one hub than US Airways has total from the U.S.. So I think and I could be wrong that US should have some high load factors on their flights to Europe because their 2 flights today to LHR are not just servicing O&D customers in PHL and CLT they are also servicing all of US Airways connecting customers from all over the United States who want to go to LHR today.

I am booked on PHL-MUC next month, booked the ticket 2 months in advance - Economy filled up to about 5 seats (plus blocked premium seats).
Funny enough, that flight was still the cheapest I could get! One way IAD-PHL-MUC only $600. Other dates and other airlines around $1200-$1500.

Quoting cloudboy (Thread starter): How does US do on their USA to Europe flights? Looking at seating charts it always looks like their flights are full, but their prices always seem to be a bit higher than the other guys. Do they just do a better job at consolidating trips?

I find the opposite to consistently be the case. I've even flown Envoy to LHR cheaper than coach on anyone else during the low season.

I flew with US on PHL-MUC-PHL, which was the cheapest option ex-MCI to get to Europe on the dates that we wanted. The flight was completely full departing and was oversold by six on the return, I volunteered but exactly six people missed the flight, which was a bummer because I really wanted to stay and eat more Bavarian food.

I have a pretty good feeling with the way US prices those markets (and the way the carrier prices its entire network,) that those flights are probably very full in the summertime.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7): It will be interesting to see them pivot away from FRA and MUC soon, as they leave Star. Basically the core of their Europe business is being ripped out. Will LHR and MAD be enough?.... my guess is it will be not be as good of a business for US as Star hubs were.

Indeed we will most likely see a re-alignment by US and LH, as both airlines adjust to a new 'After-Star' relationship.

TODAY - STAR Alliance:
- PHL-FRA 3x/daily = US+US=LH
- CLT-FRA 2x/daily = US+US
- PHL-MUC 1x daily = US
- CLT-MUC 1x daily = LH

- PHL-LHR 3x daily = BA+BA+US
- CLT-LHR 1x daily = US

NEXT YEAR - ONE WORLD - lets have a guess:
- PHL-FRA 2x/daily = AA+LH
- CLT-FRA 1x/daily = AA
- PHL-MUC 0x daily = .........
- CLT-MUC 0x daily = ..........

- PHL-LHR 4x daily = BA+BA+AA+AA
- CLT-LHR 2x daily = BA+AA

That leaves room for further Transatlantic adjustments by AA & LH.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 13): I have a pretty good feeling with the way US prices those markets (and the way the carrier prices its entire network,) that those flights are probably very full in the summertime.

Pretty much any flight crossing the North Atlantic in the summer is going to be flying pretty full. Doesn't matter which airline, the sheer volume of traffic is staggering.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5): Charlotte will be the second largest hub after DFW in the new airline, based upon current figures. I cannot see this changing hugely, and will continue to be a major gateway feeding traffic to the southern USA east of the Mississippi.

Second largest hub - most likely. It'll still be a heavily flow hub, with most secondary cities in the Southeast having the option to connect on United over Dulles or Delta over Atlanta. The tertiary cities such as New Bern just lack a ton of volume, and even there, most have competition on Delta over Atlanta still.

Will they keep some CLT-Europe service? Absolutely. A pair of CLT-LHR flights makes a ton of sense, with it maybe dropping to a single 777 in the winter. CLT-MAD in the summer makes sense with Iberia.

But take a look at what's happened with US' routes out of CLT over the past couple of years. CLT-CDG used to operate 4-5x/wk in the winter; this year it was discontinued. CLT-FCO used to operate 3-4x/wk in the winter; it was gone this past winter. I'd expect FRA to most likely do the same, especially with no Star connections there now.

CLT remains a flow hub in the combined airline - 1-2x LHR/day, seasonal MAD/CDG/FRA/FCO/DUB (DUB works with it being a 757).

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5): I think Philly will be very much act as the North Eastern hub for the new AA, specialising in connecting all the cities in this huge populated region with onward connections to Europe... I wouldn't be surprised if any of the poorer performing existing AA routes out of JFK, which are more reliant upon being fed by connections could be used to PHL too.

Don't disagree. As it stands, the only city AA has out of JFK to Europe that US doesn't serve is MXP. That being said, AA does seem to concentrate on more business type destinations out of JFK that work well on local traffic year-round.

Quoting hooverman (Reply 9): I always read that PHL- AMS is weak. Don't even know if it still exists.

It still exists. It's a daily 757 till October 8th. After October 8th it will be 6 weekly till the end of S13

Glasgow PHL during the summer averages low 80% load factors on a 757 and has in the past carried more pax per month than the competing CO EWR. Will be interesting to see what that route does as part of OW. Talk of a 767 appears purely just due to US 757s getting pulled from TA. Can't see an AA 757 taking over unless it switched to ORD or JFK.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 14):

I'm not trying to argue but there's a part if me that says LH will stay. I understand that they have business contracts here in CLT. I'm not saying they'll stay because of that but I do believe there's enough on the MUC side to feed CLT

Just my opinion

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 15): But take a look at what's happened with US' routes out of CLT over the past couple of years. CLT-CDG used to operate 4-5x/wk in the winter; this year it was discontinued. CLT-FCO used to operate 3-4x/wk in the winter; it was gone this past winter. I'd expect FRA to most likely do the same, especially with no Star connections there now.

CLT-CDG originally was planned to be seasonal all along, but the route did so well, the made it year round for three years. CLT-FCO was never year round. It always was discontinued after the holidays in December, except this year they discontinued it after the end of October.

CLT-FRA has been flown continuolusly since the early 1990s, without any Star feed until 2003. It will stay.

I don't have a breakdown specific to Europe, but do have US's total international load factors. Considering a decent percentage of US's international flying is to Europe, the following numbers should be directionally accurate for Europe.

2012
Jan: 69.85
Feb: 66.75
Mar: 80.02
Apr: 81.66
May: 82.01
Jun: 85.70
Jul: 85.09
Aug: 83.93
Sep: 83.27

Below is their operating profit/loss to Europe (Atlantic) by quarter in 2012:
Q1 2012: -28,172
Q2 2012: 80,256
Q3 2012: 117,639
figures in $000's.

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5): I could see CLT beneffint at MIA's expense being more the victim of downsizing, of any of the hubs... It is right in the far corner of the USA, and only really of any use unless you are flying there, or connecting on to Latin America or the Caribbean. If you want to fly onwards in the USA, you will more or less be back tracking on yourself. I will be interested to see if what happens with the Brazilian routes out of CLT, as I think they have gained slots and rights to fly to both Rio and Sao Paulo now.

Miami has all the O & D Brazilan traffic it can handle, CLT will handle plenty of GIG and GRU connections and expand it. Any suggestion that CLT will stop flying to Brazil is wrong. GRU has become as important as LHR to AA, if not more important. GRU could be CLT's most important international route.