Would IAH-ZRH On UA Be Next Best Thing To Europe?

sldispatcher · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:05 am

Would IAH-ZRH be next best add from IAH to Europe?

If so, which aircraft/config?

LAXintl · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:08 am

How about Swiss to Texas finally?

They came rather close to adding Dallas before the economic slow down. Now with Star, IAH sounds good.

IAHflyer97 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:09 am

Quoting sldispatcher (Thread starter):

If it were to happen, I would say a 763 would be best. I don't think it will be the best, but it wouldn't be the worst either. In the end, I feel that UA could live without it.

AVENSAB727 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:14 am

Quoting IAHflyer97 (Reply 2):

Why not the 788 or 9.

IAHflyer97 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:19 am

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 3):

Until the 763's are retired, I think the 788's should be used on longer routes like IAH-SSG (completely dreaming on that one) or IAH-TLV

thomasphoto60 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:21 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
How about Swiss to Texas finally?

They came rather close to adding Dallas before the economic slow down. Now with Star, IAH sounds good.

I was thinking the same. Actually, I had heard that LX's predecessor, Swissair, was looking at IAH in the 80s, yeah, I know, apples & oranges, still in the past and likely in the present with regards to IAH-ZHR, some have shown interest, so who knows?

Frankly I would prefer LX

[Edited 2014-06-24 17:22:19]

SFOA380 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:30 am

Didn't AA already try and fail at DFW-ZRH?

commavia · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:40 am

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 6):
Didn't AA already try and fail at DFW-ZRH?

Yes and no. AA tried DFW-ZRH and succeeded wildly until Swiss switched to Star and dropped the AA alliance. At that point, all of the online connectivity evaporated and the route was no longer viable. However, at its peak in the early 2000s, when AA was flying the route with a daily 3-class 777 in the summer and 3-class 767 in the winter, I remember hearing that it was among the, if not the single, strongest performing transatlantic flights for AA on an individual segment basis. (Anecdotal: I personally only flew the route once, in the summer of 2002, but I remember AA offering $800 travel vouchers to volunteers - that 767 was absolutely packed.)

At this point, I agree the best change for any Texas-ZRH route would be from IAH given the Star/United connectivity - but I honestly think that's a bit of a stretch given that ZRH really offers little as a hub beyond what's already avaliable via FRA/MUC.

Incidentally, one small piece of history: AA moved ORD-ZRH to DFW-ZRH in the summer of 2000 when AA received the route authority (from TWA) to begin flying to FCO - from ORD - and needed the slot pair. DFW-ZRH retained the longstanding (at that point) ORD-ZRH flight numbers (37/38), and today AA37 is used on MAD-DFW (36 eastbound) while 38 is the second daily (later evening) MIA-LHR (39 westbound).

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:46 am

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 6):
Didn't AA already try and fail at DFW-ZRH?

When AA and LX had a partnership, DFW-ZRH was (at one point) the highest yielding international route in all of AA's network. When AA and LX cut ties, the route floundered.

tbboko802 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:56 am

Houston is not really a financial center.This route seems like its pretty unlikely at present Especially when one considers that UA just started MUC, doesn't that make the water a bit chilly? Whats your opinion LAXdude1023?

[Edited 2014-06-24 17:57:05]

[Edited 2014-06-24 17:57:50]

Viscount724 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:59 am

I don't think IAH-ZRH makes sense for either UA or LX. IAH is too far south to make a good connecting hub for much of the U.S. and most people making international-international connections prefer to avoid doing it in the U.S. due to all he visa and security hassles. And IAH-ZRH not a sizable O&D market. UA is best advised to focus on the much larger LH hubs in FRA and MUC.

triangleGIS21 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:29 am

Considering how well DFW-ZRH did when AA and Swiss had that codeshare a while back, I'm pretty sure that IAH-ZRH would be just as successful for UA or Swiss, considering that there are two centers of high-yield business traffic on both sides (albeit from different industries) as well as a huge amount of connections on both ends. I do think that Swiss is more likely to launch the route than UA because of the FRA and MUC routes that they already fly.

TWA772LR · Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:29 am

I've always thought IAH-BRU would be a better route to tap into SNs oil-rich Africa network.

We all know the the international airlines make a killing on IAH-XYZ-India. UA should start IAH-BOM to get on that money train.

sldispatcher · Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:46 am

Having been in ZRH and FRA in the past month, I would easily give the edge to ZRH in terms of an airport I would want to connect flights.

It would make sense to me to connect additional Star Alliance hubs. I'm not sold on the idea of lack of connectivity into the USA just based on IAH's location. If that were the case, then flying to FRA to get to BCN makes no sense, but those sorts of connections happen daily.

But that is just my humble opinion. As much as I would like to see UA give it the try, I have to admit that having SWISS do the route would be nice from a service standpoint as well as adding additional metal into Houston

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:35 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 12):
We all know the the international airlines make a killing on IAH-XYZ-India. UA should start IAH-BOM to get on that money train.

Wait...what?

The money comes from two things:

1) Gulf carriers have an extremely low operating costs
2) The majority of the high yield traffic on the IAH-Gulf flights comes from the oil destinations in the Middle East and Africa. The only oil destination in India is BOM, but no airline is going to start a flight to India for it specifically.
3) The IAH-India traffic is heavily concentrated in DEL and especially BOM (much more so than most markets in the US) which has tons of one stop options.

It is darn near impossible to make money on a nonstop flight to India from this side of the globe. The only exception seems to be NYC simply because of the massive nature of the market. When AA flew ORD-DEL, they had higher fares on ORD-MAN with a much lower operating cost. AI, of course, doenst have to worry about making money.

Im all for UA using the 787 for some more IAH expansion, but India isn't it. I don't even think SFO-India would work based on yields and thats a 400k passenger a day market.

burchfiel · Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:41 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 14):
I don't even think SFO-India would work based on yields and thats a 400k passenger a day market.

400 thousand passengers each day from SFO to India? That strikes me as unlikely. JFK-LHR is only 8,260 passengers a day (2013 figures/365).

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:42 am

Quoting Burchfiel (Reply 15):
400 thousand passengers each day from SFO to India? That strikes me as unlikely. JFK-LHR is only 8,260 passengers a day (2013 figures/365).

I meant year, not day. Sorry.

175erj · Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:52 am

Nothing on United is going to come close to being the 'next best' anything....

commavia · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:09 pm

Quoting trianglegis21 (Reply 11):
Considering how well DFW-ZRH did when AA and Swiss had that codeshare a while back, I'm pretty sure that IAH-ZRH would be just as successful for UA or Swiss, considering that there are two centers of high-yield business traffic on both sides (albeit from different industries) as well as a huge amount of connections on both ends.

As you say, the two markets do both generates large volumes of high-yielding longhaul business traffic, albeit largely for two very different reasons (energy vs finance).

But more broadly, I don't think the comparison is really useful - the success of one does not necessarily portend the success of the other, in my view, for one big reason: at the time AA was (apparently) printing money on DFW-ZRH, ZRH served a very unique role for AA in terms of connectivity. Specifically, ZRH was a prime connecting point for those heading to southern, eastern and even central Europe in a way that LHR could not then (and really to a certain extent still cannot today) replicate. That is not the case with United, which can not link IAH with all those same places over not just FRA but also MUC - ZRH would be redundant.

CALMSP · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:25 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 18):

I would argue that BA/LHR could offer the same locations that ZRH/LX could. There is nothing that AA couldnt send through ZRH that could not have been sent through LHR.

IAHflyer97 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:34 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 19):

What about IAH-MAD? I'm certain that there's a good chunk of business traffic going there, but about Y and cargo? Could UA make MAD work rather than ZRH?

CALMSP · Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:53 pm

Quoting IAHflyer97 (Reply 20):

back when CO was with SkyTEAM, I could have seen MAD. Kellner even stated, IAH expansion into Europe would have included MAD/FCO due to UX/AZ. However, now, MAD nor FCO offer any options for capturing traffic beyond and would solely rely on destination traffic.

As for Y, you could probably capture that, but not the J class. As for cargo, there is always cargo available, but just like J class, probably not enough high yielding cargo. And, UA makes decisions based on pax, not cargo. (there's only one market where cargo has been able to keep a certain aircraft)

sldispatcher · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:02 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 21):
And, UA makes decisions based on pax, not cargo

And that's what gets my attention with ZRH. I must agree though that SWISS is probably better suited to do the route. Especially since we can't look at the route as USA-IAH-ZRH-IAH-USA. I'm thinking more SWISS feed to ZRH to IAH to USA. I know I would choose SWISS over UA if given the choice for the longhaul portion.

commavia · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:12 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 19):
There is nothing that AA couldnt send through ZRH that could not have been sent through LHR.

Yes there was.

Remember that back then there was no DFW-LHR flight - all AA/BA flights from DFW to LON went to LGW which offered dramatically less connectivity than LHR. In addition, even in some markets where BA did offer connectivity via LGW, the schedule was not conducive to easy, convenient 2-way connections. Beyond that, there were, indeed, markets that SR/LX served from ZRH that BA did not serve from LON (such as ZAG).

CALMSP · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:18 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 23):

correct, just as IAH was. Sorry, i was looking at picture without the B2.

commavia · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:24 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 24):
correct, just as IAH was.

Correct, but IAH's hub airline (Continental) had other options for convenient, 2-way connectivity to/from Europe via AMS/CDG. As I said, AA did not have such options - it was either LGW or ZRH for any significant online network access, thus why ZRH did, indeed, offer a breadth of network connectivity that AA could not replicate with any other DFW-Europe flight at the time (times have now, of course, changed markedly with LGW switching to LHR and the MAD flight).

as739x · Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:29 pm

Quoting IAHflyer97 (Reply 20):
What about IAH-MAD? I'm certain that there's a good chunk of business traffic going there

Not till the Spain get out of the recession they are in. Madrid is a tough market right now with their economy. And IAH surely isn't the best route when traffic can be picked up from the East Coast hubs.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
How about Swiss to Texas finally?

Competently agree. Swiss must be taking an eye at this IAH. Granted the huge bio-medical connection in SF, the markets to UA hubs has been doing well.

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 3):
Why not the 788 or 9.

These aircraft are well spoken for at the moment. The new 787's joining the fleet seem to all have destinations in mind. That being said, the 787 I believe is a good airplane for the ZRH route considering the high yield customers. Good marketing to high end passengers.

superjeff · Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting trianglegis21 (Reply 11):
Considering how well DFW-ZRH did when AA and Swiss had that codeshare a while back, I'm pretty sure that IAH-ZRH would be just as successful for UA or Swiss, considering that there are two centers of high-yield business traffic on both sides (albeit from different industries) as well as a huge amount of connections on both ends. I do think that Swiss is more likely to launch the route than UA because of the FRA and MUC routes that they already fly.

I tend to agree with Viscount 724. Dallas and Houston are different animals economically. Houston is largely a petroleum based economy, and Dallas is the financial center. That's why AA's DFW hub is (I believe) somewhat larger than Houston's United hub. So if the DFW ZRH route worked for American as a financial services route, that could be different than a possible Houston route.

Notwithstanding that, however, if most of the business was connecting onward from AA to LX (or Swissair before LX), there's probably not a need as the Star Alliance FRA hub makes more sense as it is simply bigger with more onward options.

Jeff

stxbohn · Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:36 pm

The energy arguement isn't bad for IAH-ZRH. Additional ways to continue on to the oil spots around the world from Houston and keep your front cabins full. There are also a lot of energy trading companies in with offices in Houston and/or Geneva. Another well timed, one-hop option that avoids Heathrow or NYC area airports is not such a bad idea either to capture some of this traffic.

SCQ83 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:37 pm

IAH-MAD would rely solely on connecting traffic with United/Star. The best for UA would be to consolidate their new seasonal IAD-MAD into a year-round flight.

DFW-MAD is another story since it is a hub-to-hub flight (AA and IB).

commavia · Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:49 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
Dallas is the financial center

The North Texas economy is highly diversified - with not just a large financial services sector, but also telecom, aerospace and defense and energy as well (though of course nowhere near what Houston has).

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
That's why AA's DFW hub is (I believe) somewhat larger than Houston's United hub

I think DFW's substantially larger hub is driven more by the fact that it splits its local market far less with a competitor airport (DAL) than IAH does (with HOU), and simply geography.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
So if the DFW ZRH route worked for American as a financial services route, that could be different than a possible Houston route.

I'm not sure it was really financial services that drove DFW-ZRH - in fact, I tend to doubt it. While anecdotal, the one time I flew it back in 2002, I remember a flight attendant telling me that the entire F cabin (this was before the 763s were reconfigured to 2-class) was filled with a single large party of oil industry executives connecting out of somewhere in Africa or the Middle East and heading to IAH via ZRH and DFW.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
Notwithstanding that, however, if most of the business was connecting onward from AA to LX (or Swissair before LX), there's probably not a need as the Star Alliance FRA hub makes more sense as it is simply bigger with more onward options.

toxtethogrady · Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:23 pm

IAH-MAD seems to make more sense. Now that there is a little daylight in the visa situation, connections from Latin America to Madrid via IAH are more viable, and IAH is almost a direct shot to Spain from Mexico and Central America. Add in the local traffic, and...

toxtethogrady · Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 27):
That's why AA's DFW hub is (I believe) somewhat larger than Houston's United hub.

DFW is bigger than IAH because CO spent a decade under Lorenzo basically pissing off the traveling public while Crandall was assembling AA's superhub. When Exxon moved to Irving instead of Houston in 1989, it was said in the Dallas papers to be all about "telephones and airplanes", the implication being that DFW was a better hub with more connections. It wasn't until the Bethune era that CO became competitive.

[Edited 2014-06-25 10:34:31]

toxtethogrady · Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 30):
The North Texas economy is highly diversified - with not just a large financial services sector, but also telecom, aerospace and defense and energy as well (though of course nowhere near what Houston has).

Most of the Dallas economy is focused on domestic products and services, so it handles more passengers overall than Houston, while Houston handles more international passengers.

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Quoting toxtethogrady (Reply 33):
Most of the Dallas economy is focused on domestic products and services, so it handles more passengers overall than Houston, while Houston handles more international passengers.

Thats a huge over simplification.

If you want a more accurate description of the economies between Dallas and Houston:

Dallas (DFW): A highly diverse economy. A presence of everything, but not number one at anything

Houston: A flagship economy. It has a huge emphasis on oil, gas, shipping, and medical research. Likewise its the number one world wide center for energy. Other than that, Houston does not have a diverse economy.

Because of Houston's standing with oil and gas as well as shipping, it garners more international demand. Dallas gets a lot of its international demand from the IT and telecom industry. Its more India top heavy than most markets. Thats why EK, EY, and QR can all come in here and fill their planes, but KL and (to a far lesser degree) LH struggle.

Quoting toxtethogrady (Reply 32):
DFW is bigger than IAH because CO spent a decade under Lorenzo basically pissing off the traveling public while Crandall was assembling AA's superhub.

No, the reason why DFW and IAH are the way they are have everything to do with geography and their local economies. Blaming it on Lorenzo is ridiculous.

YoungDon · Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:57 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
Because of Houston's standing with oil and gas as well as shipping, it garners more international demand. Dallas gets a lot of its international demand from the IT and telecom industry. Its more India top heavy than most markets. Thats why EK, EY, and QR can all come in here and fill their planes, but KL and (to a far lesser degree) LH struggle.

I did not realize that was why DFW has so much India traffic outside of VFR. Very interesting, thanks.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
No, the reason why DFW and IAH are the way they are have everything to do with geography and their local economies. Blaming it on Lorenzo is ridiculous.

Agree, just like CO was in the dumps in the 80's prior to Bethune, AA had a really tough first decade of the 2000s and was certainly not even close to CO at that time, and IAH gained significant traffic during that time period as a result of CO's route structure. (Including a lot of domestic flying which is now better handled via DEN or ORD post merger.)

Getting back on topic, a daily 788 seems like a good fit for IAH-ZRH in the future. However I'm sure UA has bigger fish to fry with the early 788s. I could see this happening once they get more frames in service.

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:10 pm

Quoting YoungDon (Reply 35):
I did not realize that was why DFW has so much India traffic outside of VFR. Very interesting, thanks.

Yes, thanks to the tech/telecom/IT stuff up here.

DFW-India and IAH-India are similar in size to each other, but how they break down is entirely different.

IAH-BOM alone is almost 50% of all of IAH-India. IAH-DEL is another 25% of IAH-India. The rest only makes up about 25% of India.

DFW's largest India market is (going forward based on trends) HYD. Previously, it has been BOM. DFW-HYD is 25% of DFW-India and DFW-BOM is about the same. DFW-India is much more scattered amongst the major cities in India as opposed to IAH.

Quoting YoungDon (Reply 35):
Getting back on topic, a daily 788 seems like a good fit for IAH-ZRH in the future. However I'm sure UA has bigger fish to fry with the early 788s. I could see this happening once they get more frames in service.

I thought IAH-ZRH would have been a better fit than IAH-MUC personally. IAH-BRU would be a better fit than both because of the Africa network available from there. Personally, I think IAH-ZRH is doable.

YoungDon · Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:21 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 36):
Yes, thanks to the tech/telecom/IT stuff up here.

DFW-India and IAH-India are similar in size to each other, but how they break down is entirely different.

IAH-BOM alone is almost 50% of all of IAH-India. IAH-DEL is another 25% of IAH-India. The rest only makes up about 25% of India.

DFW's largest India market is (going forward based on trends) HYD. Previously, it has been BOM. DFW-HYD is 25% of DFW-India and DFW-BOM is about the same. DFW-India is much more scattered amongst the major cities in India as opposed to IAH.

I would assume the reason this situation exists is because most of the IAH-based India traffic is VFR (and primarily going to BOM) while the DFW demand is more diverse due to the scattered nature of ops for India based IT? Am I mistaken in that? For some reason, I thought the bulk of India IT ops were in the BLR area. though this may no longer be the case.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 36):
I thought IAH-ZRH would have been a better fit than IAH-MUC personally. IAH-BRU would be a better fit than both because of the Africa network available from there. Personally, I think IAH-ZRH is doable.

My issue with the MUC flight is that it's fairly duplicative. What destinations can you reach from MUC that you can't via FRA? It can't be very many, though ultimately ZRH may be in the same position.

It seems that UA struggles on IAD-BRU (as a matter of fact, I used that flight to burn some FF miles for a Europe trip a couple of months ago). Wonder if it would have possibly been better to start IAH-BRU, drop IAD-BRU (allowing SN to continue to serve that route), and not start IAH-MUC?

AA777223 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:49 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
Because of Houston's standing with oil and gas as well as shipping, it garners more international demand. Dallas gets a lot of its international demand from the IT and telecom industry. Its more India top heavy than most markets. Thats why EK, EY, and QR can all come in here and fill their planes, but KL and (to a far lesser degree) LH struggle.

Quoting toxtethogrady (Reply 32):
DFW is bigger than IAH because CO spent a decade under Lorenzo basically pissing off the traveling public while Crandall was assembling AA's superhub.

No, the reason why DFW and IAH are the way they are have everything to do with geography and their local economies. Blaming it on Lorenzo is ridiculous.

LAX, I agree with you, mostly...as I usually do. You know I always respect your insights, though I do think there is some merit to the idea that the two large carriers at each of the two airports have influenced their respective developments. To simply dismiss them and use purely geography and economy is simply something I cannot stand behind. As an aviation enthusiast who has lived in and watched both markets closely, there are quite a few factors at work here, and it's easy to oversimplify.

It is worth noting that DFW has only recently had a surge of non-AA international service. For many years (those in which I lived there), it was a few European and some South/Central American carriers. One need look at the histories of foreign carrier traffic at each hub to see. DFW generally attracting OW partners with IAH attracting more *A partners. Each alliances size and the strength of their carriers alone is indicative of the growth influencers. Following the logic that DFW is tech and IAH is oil, then CA should not have gone to IAH, rather DFW.

Houston, for a good while attracted a variety of carriers that could be considered exotic by DFW standards until recently. The only international carrier that DFW receives that IAH doesn't is QF, I believe. This is easily explained by the OW connection. I think it is very accurate to say that the carriers (not necessarily Lorenzo) with their alliances, health and history have heavily influenced the growth of both of these airports - in many ways more than (I think) their economies.

[Edited 2014-06-25 13:52:59]

FlyPNS1 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting YoungDon (Reply 37):
It seems that UA struggles on IAD-BRU (as a matter of fact, I used that flight to burn some FF miles for a Europe trip a couple of months ago).

I don't think UA struggles that much on IAD-BRU...granted the recent addition of SN to IAD-BRU is probably hurting a bit. However, UA uses a 777-200 on BRU when they could easily use a 763. However, they use the larger plane because they need the larger premium cabins for all the governmental/EU type traffic. Now, it's true the back of the plane is often more available because BRU is not such a huge tourist destination (compared to other areas). I think IAH-BRU would perform terribly as you'd have little local trafic and be reliant solely on connections. Sure, it might give you a few more African destinations to coonect to, but I don't think that's enough.

As others have said, IAH-ZRH doesn't really add anything not covered by IAH-MUC that was just added, so I don't see UA rushing to fill this gap.

AA777223 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:31 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
I don't think UA struggles that much on IAD-BRU...granted the recent addition of SN to IAD-BRU is probably hurting a bit. However, UA uses a 777-200 on BRU when they could easily use a 763. However, they use the larger plane because they need the larger premium cabins for all the governmental/EU type traffic. Now, it's true the back of the plane is often more available because BRU is not such a huge tourist destination (compared to other areas). I think IAH-BRU would perform terribly as you'd have little local trafic and be reliant solely on connections. Sure, it might give you a few more African destinations to coonect to, but I don't think that's enough.

As others have said, IAH-ZRH doesn't really add anything not covered by IAH-MUC that was just added, so I don't see UA rushing to fill this gap.

Hell, if it were that bad, they could use a 752! I think they are doing OK on IAD-BRU.

jetblue1965 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:42 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):

Is SN part of the LH/UA JV ? I thought the 2 IAD-BRU services are timed apart for optimal connections both directions

LAXdude1023 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:19 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
Following the logic that DFW is tech and IAH is oil, then CA should not have gone to IAH, rather DFW.

No, its the opposite. There is a huge amount of oil business in China and given the Star Alliance ties, IAH-PEK made perfect sense.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
The only international carrier that DFW receives that IAH doesn't is QF, I believe

Soon to be EY as well if you count that.

Quoting YoungDon (Reply 37):
For some reason, I thought the bulk of India IT ops were in the BLR area. though this may no longer be the case.

It actually depends on the type of technology work being done. BLR has far more software development and innovation. Thats why it is the Silicon Valley of India and why it has such a big tie to SFO. Hyderabad is huge for IT, telecom, and call centers. Thats a huge reason for the growth in the DFW-HYD market.

For VFR, Dallas has a larger Indian community than Houston by about 10%. But broken down, there are actually more Indians from Maharajsta and Gujarat in Houston. In Dallas, there are just alot more South Indians from Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Kerala. Punjabis and Bengalis are a wash between the two.

SFOA380 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:53 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
Houston, for a good while attracted a variety of carriers that could be considered exotic by DFW standards

Having spent 10 years in Texas (not in Houston), Houston always struck me as the much more international, world-class city. Not that a collection of foreign-flagged carriers defines this, but Houston just felt more worldly. Better skyline, cleaner and more modern, etc... The Dallas addition of the ME3 plus Qantas hardly qualifies as a windfall of new carriers and KLM likely won't survive. I think Houston has added six or seven new international carriers during that same time.

Viscount724 · Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:03 pm

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 41):
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):

Is SN part of the LH/UA JV ?

Yes they are. LH/LX/OS/SN/AC.
http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/alliances/joint-ventures.html

YoungDon · Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:38 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
I don't think UA struggles that much on IAD-BRU...granted the recent addition of SN to IAD-BRU is probably hurting a bit. However, UA uses a 777-200 on BRU when they could easily use a 763. However, they use the larger plane because they need the larger premium cabins for all the governmental/EU type traffic. Now, it's true the back of the plane is often more available because BRU is not such a huge tourist destination (compared to other areas). I think IAH-BRU would perform terribly as you'd have little local trafic and be reliant solely on connections. Sure, it might give you a few more African destinations to coonect to, but I don't think that's enough.

Good points, both with respect to aircraft size and the viability of IAD/IAH-BRU. IAH-BRU would serve a different market than does IAD-BRU, and it would likely be much more connection heavy. The yields must be good on IAD-BRU to have two carriers serving it with around 500 seats a day, because (anecdotally) I was on it both ways with very little company in J or Y last month either direction.

Loads might be good with a connection heavy IAH-BRU flight, but yields may or may not be there due to the O&D issue. I agree that the performance of the IAH-BRU flight would suffer somewhat with the current situation (nonstops to FRA and MUC), but I think it would have been a reasonable alternative route to serve many of those same traffic flows had MUC not been started first. Houston alone has some fairly strong business and VFR ties to Africa and a flight to BRU would enable some African connections not available via FRA or MUC.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 42):
It actually depends on the type of technology work being done. BLR has far more software development and innovation. Thats why it is the Silicon Valley of India and why it has such a big tie to SFO. Hyderabad is huge for IT, telecom, and call centers. Thats a huge reason for the growth in the DFW-HYD market.

For VFR, Dallas has a larger Indian community than Houston by about 10%. But broken down, there are actually more Indians from Maharajsta and Gujarat in Houston. In Dallas, there are just alot more South Indians from Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Kerala. Punjabis and Bengalis are a wash between the two.

Dude, you are a treasure trove of information. Thanks for this post.

IAHflyer97 · Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:08 am

How about VIE? Wasn't there a bit of talk of OS starting VIE-IAH?

laca773 · Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:09 am

Adding service between ZRH-IAH is definitely an interesting, and debatable topic. I do think most of us agree, we would definitely prefer if LX were to operate the service.
The chances of success are much better since this both are Star hubs. If it wasn't, I don't see this route working unless it were to be flown with Privat Air. 73G/73H.
I believe the main question to ask is, do LH & UA have the market nicely covered Star hub to hub with their service IAH-FRA/MUC? Is there still enough demand to operate a LX A332 at least 5x a week (Four weekly flights wouldn't be worth while in a market such as this, correct?) on a A332. UA does have the 763ER and 788s which have less capacity, but product wise, LX wins hands down across the board.

bchandl · Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:29 am

Quoting IAHflyer97 (Reply 4):
IAH-SSG (

Don't worry! Stay tuned and I'll make this route as the really uninformed and just generally dumb rumor thread for next week!!!!!!

I would do it now, but someone already beat me to it with the will "AS buy WN" thread and the "DL to acquire One Million A380s!!!!".

We've had enough stupid to last for the week, but next week, watch out.

tbboko802 · Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:44 am

A few people posting on TX oriented forums have a favorite, be it DFW or IAH. If that is made clear that is fantastic. What borders on dishonesty are the attempts by some to subtly (or not so subtly) turn forums into Dallas vs Houston contests while trying to hide behind poorly crafted subjective posts. Please refrain from this sophomoric activity. If we do so everyone will feel free to contribute without fellow posters trying to denigrate their airport/city.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net