Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:38 pm

Quoting united319 (Reply 48):
I once flew DFW-IAD-NRT-GUM-KIX-SFO-DFW in one day. Now thats NUTS!

Mileage run?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10047
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:37 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15):

BOS-LAX seems to be a one off experiment for 60-90 days. Why they are doing it out of LAX and not SFO is beyond me.

UA controls the premium market between SFO and BOS so they don't need to "experiment". LA however is very different. There are 5 airlines on the route and a lot of competition. Putting a better product on the route (PS or not), may be a way to differentiate from the other carriers. They could have put the aircraft on any route but they're putting it on LAX-BOS so I think it's fair to call it an experiment.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 18):
They completely dominate on SFO-BOS. Neither DL nor AA offer any flights on such a major transcon pair, so zero incentive to offer a premium product.

  
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:03 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 50):
Quoting catiii (Thread starter):
Sitting on a shuttle bus at JFK talking to some UA crew, and they relayed that PS is being redeployed to EWR.
No indications that this is true from far more well-placed sources than notoriously misinformed crewmembers. The transcons are not nearly as lucrative as they were in the past due to fragmentation, but UA still generates strong premium traffic and I doubt the flights are going anywhere.

Here's how rumours are perpetuated:

1. Someone starts a thread on ANet, saying "would it make sense to do xxx?
2. A crew member reads the ANet thread, and says "I've heard a rumour that xxx will happen"
3. Someone else on ANet hears crew members talking about the rumour, and says on ANet "a crew member told me xxx will happen".

Crew members are usually not much more informed about major strategic decisions like moving PS from JFK to EWR than the general public is. The ONLY people at UA who would know about this until just before it's publicly announced are key employees at headquarters, and if they were to post this information on ANet, they would be terminated the day they shared the information here.

I'm sure there are many people who work in planning / finance for major airlines who lurk on this site, read some of the information here, and laugh quietly while saying "I can't believe there are people who are crazy enough to believe this!"
 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:16 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 53):
Crew members are usually not much more informed about major strategic decisions

I need to clear up a point: at my carrier we refer to ALL employees as crewmembers (regardless of if they are in operations, etc). I inadvertantly used the term when referring to my conversation. I should be clear, these were not uniformed crew. These were employees from ORD who were there on business. Not that it changes the veracity of their statements, but it's an important point.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:29 pm

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 14):
It will be interesting how the BOS experiment goes this summer
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15):
BOS-LAX seems to be a one off experiment for 60-90 days. Why they are doing it out of LAX and not SFO is beyond me.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 16):
owever I honestly hope the BOS experiment goes great

There is no BOS P.S. experiment.

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 23):
What is the experiment? My understanding was that UA was just putting a PS plane with non-PS service on LAX-BOS since there wasn't anywhere better to put it. I could be wrong, of course.
Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 41):
The p.s. 757s that will fly LAX - BOS will have the same domestic F upgrade/service standards as a typical domestic F flight (i.e. EWR - SEA)

Sightseer and CONTACREW are right – there's a P.S. hard product 757 coming out of maintenance early that would be sitting idle. It's going on BOS-LAX offering regular domestic service.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting adamblang (Reply 55):

Then why not just run it as a spare? Or put it on hub routes out of SFO or LAX? UA isn't going to admit it's an experiment, but if booking patterns change to support this flight, then you can bet UA will take a hard look at PS in the market.
 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:35 pm

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 56):
if booking patterns change to support this flight, then you can bet UA will take a hard look at PS in the market.

And, as if it is rumored, B6 comes in with Mint to SFO and LAX from BOS then it may force them to put PS into the market to compete. They may be able to get away with a TATL 757 in lieu of PS, but I wonder if it gives them rotational problems with the fleet at that point. You'd have to run it EWR-SFO-BOS-SFO-ORD/EWR-Europe. Although if the 757s come off deep Europe in lieu of other aircraft that don't require tech stops in the winter than it may free them up...
 
Sightseer
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:04 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:54 pm

Per reply 39 LAX-OGG has seen p.s. 757s before, yet I doubt it's a candidate for p.s. service. If UA were genuinely interested in expanding p.s. to BOS, I don't see why they'd just go halfway and only bring the hard product.
 
codc10
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:59 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 54):
I need to clear up a point: at my carrier we refer to ALL employees as crewmembers (regardless of if they are in operations, etc). I inadvertantly used the term when referring to my conversation. I should be clear, these were not uniformed crew. These were employees from ORD who were there on business. Not that it changes the veracity of their statements, but it's an important point.

Sorry for the confusion.

I still don't give any credence to it. The p.s. service is born out of a competitive need to offer a premium product to capture a high value market segment. EWR-LAX/SFO generate high local fares (not as high as JFK, though) in a near-monopoly environment, and call for a great deal of volume. Deploying the p.s. fleet on EWR-LAX/SFO would likely not generate a meaningful premium over existing service (you won't be capturing new customers) and would be a reduction in capacity, neither of which are desirable.
 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 59):
I still don't give any credence to it.

I don't disagree, which is why I said it doesn't change the veracity of their statements.
 
MVAair
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:59 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:10 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 46):
Cooley holds otherwise

You misunderstand Cooley. It isnt a Interstate Commerce issue.

Quoting catiii (Reply 46):
States and local governments can regulate interstate commerce. Simple as that

No they cannot. Cooley isnt a Roe v Wade type of ruling you think it is. No where did the court say that states and local governments could regulate interstate commerce. They said that particular case didnt apply as a violation of interstate commerce.

Quoting catiii (Reply 46):
USDOT, through many slot divestiture proceedings, absolutely has put significant restrictions on which city pairs can and can not be served from DCA and who can serve them.

That is incorrect. Youre confusing slot allocation with the USDOT telling airlines where they can fly. There is simply no restriction on incumbent carriers as to which markets they can serve from DCA so long as it is within the primeter rules and the slots arent specfically for small communities.

Quoting catiii (Reply 46):
Again, simply, there is. As noted above in the most recent slot divestitures, DOT specifically excluded certain carriers from participating and excluded certain cities from being eligible. T

No where does the USDOT limit the number of carriers on route like DCA-ORD or limit frequencies. Even in the case of new slots that were divested, there is nothing preventing AA from flying any of the city pairs awarded to the LCCs that got the slots. In fact most of the city pairs where WN and B6 have started service have competition on them already.

I can see from your points that youre quite confused about this whole issue. Youre confusing slots with city pairs and frequencies. AA is NOT prohibited from serving any market within the perimeter rule. The slots diverted went to LCCs but didnt state which routes they must be used on, aircraft size or frequencies in each market.

Fact is the PANYNJ cannot tell airlines where to fly from EWR, they cannot tell them what to fly or how often to fly it.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5349
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:26 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 42):

Why didn't they just convert all of them to P.S. 757's instead of just tossing them to FedEx like some kids hand-me-downs? That would have at least allowed them to put them on more Transcons to expand their existing P.S. service, especially to destinations where VX is a threat like BOS and DCA. I'm guessing that the 757's were not engined for TATL anyways, but still would have surely found good usage.

Because JFK-LAX/SFO is the only market that can really work on that kind of product.

and the UA 757s have PW2037s which are more than fine for TATL flying. Having said that most of them are not ETOPS and UA doesn't really need any extra TATL 757 capacity

Quoting United1 (Reply 44):

UAs 752s are capable of flying DEN-HNL without an issue so transatlantic is possible with the aircraft...also the engines are not an issue as even if they are de-rated (not sure would need to check) it's not that much of an issue to change that....most just $$$$.

2037s AFAIK.
Same engine Delta uses on its 75E/75S fleet.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10047
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:03 am

Quoting adamblang (Reply 55):
Sightseer and CONTACREW are right – there's a P.S. hard product 757 coming out of maintenance early that would be sitting idle. It's going on BOS-LAX offering regular domestic service.

The only difference that matters between P.S. and "regular" service is the hard product. So for all intents and purposes, as far as this flier is concerned there will be a P.S. service on BOS-LAX on one of the daily flights.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 998
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:13 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 63):
The only difference that matters between P.S. and "regular" service is the hard product. So for all intents and purposes, as far as this flier is concerned there will be a P.S. service on BOS-LAX on one of the daily flights.

Hard product will be P.S. Soft product such as upgrades and service standards will be typical domestic F. (i.e. EWR - SEA)

Put in simpler terms anytime a P.S. 757 is flown on any route besides JFK - LAX/SFO then normal domestic F/upgrade service standards apply.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
ua900
Moderator
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:24 am

Quoting united319 (Reply 48):
All Transcon flights from EWR already have heightened service in First Class. You get an actual printed menu with 4 entree options, an appetizer service, bread basket including fresh hot garlic bread, and a sundae service. This mirrors PS's meal service. Plus EWR to LAX and SFO already have quite a few sCO 752s on the route with the same exact seats. UA leaving JFK is just another example of them running away from competition and blaming it on some BS reason like the previous drawbacks on critical markets like MIA and dismantling CLE and cutting SEA-NRT.

Best point in this whole thread thus far. If anything p.s. itself is being dismantled and allowed to exist in name only. The only differences I can think are the light version of the BF amenity kit in p.s. F and the headphones for sale in p.s. Y.

The sCO 752s on domestic runs already offer a high level of service, i.e. enhanced domestic first soft product due to length of most of their trips and the international BF hard product. Of course they still have CO crews as a huge drawback.   

Domestic runs of sCO 752s are rare though vis-à-vis the onslaught of 739s. CO mgmt. seems to think that customers can't tell whether they're buying F seats on a 739 (or a CR7) or a sCO/PS 752 or a 788. Let's see whether the enhanced domestic F soft product that emulates p.s. will last and on what routes. IMO enhanced domestic service a la p.s. can be expanded to a number of other cities, as DL and AA have already demonstrated.
2020: DEN | DFW | EWR | FRA | IAH | LAX | MCO | MUC | ORD | PTY | SFO | TXL
 
codc10
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:43 pm

Quoting united319 (Reply 48):

This is actually incorrect, has been for some time. EWR transcons (effective 2/1/15) receive the same heightened transcon service as all UAL domestic flights >2300sm. For lunch/dinner, is a separate salad course, three entree choices, sorbet or gelato with toppings and pre-arrival fresh baked cookies. No menus.

P.s. is the only domestic service with printed menus and those flights are provisioned with three entree courses in BF from the international rotation.
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:04 pm

Quoting united319 (Reply 48):
UA leaving JFK is just another example of them running away from competition and blaming it on some BS reason like the previous drawbacks on critical markets like MIA and dismantling CLE and cutting SEA-NRT.

That's an interesting but flawed analysis. You make it sound like companies should "stay and fight" like some gallant, chivalrous knights. All companies have to make strategic choices about where to utilize limited resources. Business is about making money. It isn't a game of Risk in which the goal is to control the most territory.

While you can look at various choices after the fact and critique them, when companies make those decisions it isn't based on "running away from competition and blaming it on some BS reason" - it's based on a reasoned strategy.
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting united319 (Reply 48):
and cutting SEA-NRT.

And also worth pointing out that because United have a joint venture with NH, they didn't cut SEA-NRT. They still operate it as a JOINT VENTURE with NH, sharing revenues and costs just as they would if they were operating it on their own metal.
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17938
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting christao17 (Reply 68):
And also worth pointing out that because United have a joint venture with NH, they didn't cut SEA-NRT. They still operate it as a JOINT VENTURE with NH, sharing revenues and costs just as they would if they were operating it on their own metal.

I think you've been misinformed. When DL cuts SFONRT to focus on its SEA hub, that is smart network planning. When UA cuts SEANRT to leave it to a JV partner and to focus on its SFO hub which is bigger than DL @ SEA and AA @ LAX combined--never mind UA's Pacific capacity @LAX is almost bigger than DL+AA--that is running away from competition. Easy mistake to make 
Quoting united319 (Reply 48):
UA leaving JFK is just another example of them running away from competition and blaming it on some BS reason like the previous drawbacks on critical markets like MIA and dismantling CLE and cutting SEA-NRT.

That ship sailed almost ten years ago when UA dumped everything from JFK except LAX/SFO and some CRJs to IAD
I don't take responsibility at all
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:39 pm

When did P.S. come to mean premium service on this forum?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5766
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:45 pm

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 70):
When did P.S. come to mean premium service on this forum?

That is Uniteds term for it

United PS = United Premium Service

And is specifically for the JFK-LAX/SFO routes
 
S75752
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:55 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 62):

and the UA 757s have PW2037s which are more than fine for TATL flying. Having said that most of them are not ETOPS and UA doesn't really need any extra TATL 757 capacity

Is there any actual physical difference between those and the TATL-capable engines (the 43,000 ones) within the PW family? I get that the TATL 752's use RR, but I believe PW had their own equivalent at that thrust. So are those really any different from the PW 43,000 equivalent, or is that just the rating on paper?
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 998
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:05 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 71):
Is there any actual physical difference between those and the TATL-capable engines (the 43,000 ones) within the PW family? I get that the TATL 752's use RR, but I believe PW had their own equivalent at that thrust. So are those really any different from the PW 43,000 equivalent, or is that just the rating on paper?

If I remember correctly I don't believe the ETOPS sUA 752s are ETOPS rated for European flying which is why they aren't flown to Europe.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
S75752
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:11 pm

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 72):

If I remember correctly I don't believe the ETOPS sUA 752s are ETOPS rated for European flying which is why they aren't flown to Europe.

But aside from that, there isn't any physical difference? (Aside from the engine brand... But I guess regarding what it would take to brave the 3700 mile missions)
 
codc10
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:54 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 73):

But aside from that, there isn't any physical difference? (Aside from the engine brand... But I guess regarding what it would take to brave the 3700 mile missions)

GPS and RNAV, to start. Those are important avionic and navigation features for operations to/from/within Europe.
 
UA444
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:04 pm

The UA 757s don't have the necessary equipment for TATL because they never needed it. They never had any intention or need to fly them over the Atlantic and wanted a consistent all wide body TATL fleet.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:28 pm

American offered 3 class flagship service BOS-LAX with a 767 for years, this would be nothing new for Boston.
 
codc10
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:14 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 75):
The UA 757s don't have the necessary equipment for TATL because they never needed it. They never had any intention or need to fly them over the Atlantic and wanted a consistent all wide body TATL fleet.

This is true. These are costly upgrades and UAL wants to start to move away from 757s across the Atlantic, especially to continental Europe. The company doesn't need any more transatlantic-capable 757s. Pre-merger United simply had a different mission profile for the 757-200.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3620
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:49 am

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 72):
If I remember correctly I don't believe the ETOPS sUA 752s are ETOPS rated for European flying which is why they aren't flown to Europe.

I think over half of them are ETOPS, and I think they've been subbed on Hawaii missions at times over the last couple years.
 
UA444
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:01 am

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 78):

When they downgraded ps to 2 class a few years ago, they retired some of the old ps birds and replaced them with some of the ETOPS ones. There was only ever 16 ETOPS birds in the fleet, out of 98 delivered.
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:14 am

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 78):
I think over half of them are ETOPS, and I think they've been subbed on Hawaii missions at times over the last couple years.

All of the p.s. planes are ETOPS, they are occasionally subbed on Hawaii missions but with a loss of seats compared to a regular sUA 752 its not something done without hesitation.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
UA444
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:30 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 80):

No they are not, several are still the original ps birds from 2004 that were never ETOPS.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5349
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:01 am

Quoting S75752 (Reply 71):

Is there any actual physical difference between those and the TATL-capable engines (the 43,000 ones) within the PW family? I get that the TATL 752's use RR, but I believe PW had their own equivalent at that thrust. So are those really any different from the PW 43,000 equivalent, or is that just the rating on paper?

I don't believe that CO's RB211s are 43K engines(maybe on the 753 but i can't see why they would be on the 752, someone from UA or CO please step in if I am wrong)
and no, Pratt doesn't offer the PW2043s on the 752. Only the 753.

Having said that, again, Delta has PW2037s on its TATL fleet so UA/CO don't "need" 43K engines. 37K or 40K is more than enough.
Not sure if the United ETOPS 757s can fly to Europe but the engines aren't what is stopping them if they can't. It is likely the lack of something up front.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4744
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:05 am

I'd doubt the statement. Until you see it in the OAG..
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14041
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:53 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 82):
I don't believe that CO's RB211s are 43K engines(maybe on the 753 but i can't see why they would be on the 752,

The sCO 757s with RB211-535 engines are indeed rated at 43,700 pounds each.

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont.../inflight/aircraft/757/200/v2.aspx
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
catiii
Topic Author
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:32 pm

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
Youre confusing slots with city pairs and frequencies.

No, I'm not. Your assertion, which I have quoted below to remind you of your words, was that DOT doesn't tell airlines which city pairs to serve, aircraft gauge from DCA, or how many carrier can serve a given city pair. As a reminder:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 34):
USDOT doesnt tell airlines which city pairs to serve or aircraft gauge to use from DCA or how many carriers can serve a given city pair.

As I demonstrated, DOT and the Congress have long dictated competitive issues at DCA. No airline could have gone in and won slots in the last divestiture by agreeing to serve Atlanta. No airline could have won AIR21 slots by agreeing to serve Chicago. Now I understand this is confusing to you, as your posts on this topic have been all over the board, but the fact of the matter is that DOT does have a process in place in which it dictates competition on city pairs.

Now here's where you come back again with AA and markets inside the perimeter, etc. which I don't disagree with. But you made the blanket statement about DOT, which simply isn't true. Now if you meant to qualify your statement, by all means do so.

But you didn't qualify your statement...because you're confused.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
The slots diverted went to LCCs but didnt state which routes they must be used on, aircraft size or frequencies in each market.

Okay. And tell me this, if United wanted to bid on them to increase service to Chicago could they have?

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
You misunderstand Cooley. It isnt a Interstate Commerce issue.

Hmmm...and yet the Court held in Cooley that Congress does not have the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. But yeah, it isn's an interstate commerce issue.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
Cooley isnt a Roe v Wade type of ruling you think it is.

Well, no other rulings are since Roe was a unique penumbra, but you do understand how the Court works right? That cases are decided on the question but have much larger Constitutuonal implications? You know that right? Because you're terribly quick to question others' understandings when you clearly don't understand youself...

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
There is simply no restriction on incumbent carriers as to which markets they can serve from DCA so long as it is within the primeter rules and the slots arent specfically for small communities.

Um...ok. No one argued otherwise.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
No where does the USDOT limit the number of carriers on route like DCA-ORD or limit frequencies.

Interesting, because in previous FAA bills and slot proceedings the DOT was clear on the criteria for acquiring slots. For example some of the requirements were that slots would only be designated for service:

1. to communities without existing nonstop air transportation to DCA;
2. small communities;
3. that will provide competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly nonstop route to DCA.

So if I am JetBlue, and I want to start service to ORD from DCA, and the slot acquisition requirements as a limited incumbent/new entrant are as noted above, I'm going to be able to serve ORD how? And if I am excluded from serving ORD Congress and DOT are limiting the number of carriers on the route. And if I want to buy them on the open market but DOT puts restrictions on the sale precluding me from using them for existing routes, I'm going to be able to serve ORD how? See how that works?

Quoting MVAair (Reply 60):
Even in the case of new slots that were divested, there is nothing preventing AA from flying any of the city pairs awarded to the LCCs that got the slots.

Again, no one is saying otherwise. The question was , as I'll remind you:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 34):
USDOT doesnt tell airlines which city pairs to serve or aircraft gauge to use from DCA or how many carriers can serve a given city pair.

As noted many times, DOT does in fact tell airlines which city pairs they can serve.

Quoting catiii (Reply 45):
As someone on this thread once said:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 35):please dont embarrass yourself further.
 
United1
Posts: 4095
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Rumor Check: UA Pulling P.S. Out Of JFK?

Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:19 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 81):
Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 80):

No they are not, several are still the original ps birds from 2004 that were never ETOPS.

Some are ETOPS but not all...

7 are full ETOPS
2 are Overwater equipped
6 have no ETOPS/Overwater provisions...
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos