Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
AntonioMartin wrote:I just wonder how more long will we still have BA here............
AntonioMartin wrote:I just wonder how more long will we still have BA here............
remymartin11 wrote:Any intel if BA will bring F seats back to this market, or is J as good as it’s going to get?
chepos wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:I just wonder how more long will we still have BA here............
Why would BA leave PHX?, LHR supports both AA/BA out of PHX and they corrsinate in the route. I don’t see BA going anywhere.
AntonioMartin wrote:chepos wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:I just wonder how more long will we still have BA here............
Why would BA leave PHX?, LHR supports both AA/BA out of PHX and they corrsinate in the route. I don’t see BA going anywhere.
I hope you are right!
LAXdude1023 wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:chepos wrote:
Why would BA leave PHX?, LHR supports both AA/BA out of PHX and they corrsinate in the route. I don’t see BA going anywhere.
I hope you are right!
Why would you think otherwise?
AntonioMartin wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:I hope you are right!
Why would you think otherwise?
I was just thinking that with two airlines, even as OW partners, in the route, it might be a bit of overkill.....that and the aviation geek in me would hate to see BA be the one that left the route because....(in the case that I was right in my previous thinking and it was overkill) if AA was the one that left it, no big deal, we have AA planes landing here from about 50 other destinations daily..that's all.
AntonioMartin wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:I hope you are right!
Why would you think otherwise?
I was just thinking that with two airlines, even as OW partners, in the route, it might be a bit of overkill.....that and the aviation geek in me would hate to see BA be the one that left the route because....(in the case that I was right in my previous thinking and it was overkill) if AA was the one that left it, no big deal, we have AA planes landing here from about 50 other destinations daily..that's all.
hz747300 wrote:5th largest city in the US with OW hubs on either end, the LHR flight will be there for a while. Since there is a JV, it doesn't matter to BA or AA who is flying the route, right?
davidjohnson6 wrote:Phoenix is not a place of abject poverty. Itsmetropolitan area has about 5 million people. That's more than enough to sustain a single route to a major hub in Europe
Denver's metropolitan area is about 3 million people, is a location of comparable distance from Europe and manages to sustain 2 competing alliances flying year round to London
Salt Lake City has a metropolitan population around 1.25 million people, yet has routes to London *and* Paris.
Yes a London-Phoenix route was a bit of a risk in the late 1990s by BA, but I'm just not seeing a reason to think London-Phoenix as a route might be at risk
incitatus wrote:hz747300 wrote:5th largest city in the US with OW hubs on either end, the LHR flight will be there for a while. Since there is a JV, it doesn't matter to BA or AA who is flying the route, right?
I wouldn't use the population of the city of Phoenix as a proxy for anything airline-related. The metro area itself is a better metric. Phoenix's is 16th in population. Then there are the already mentioned drivers of premium traffic.
hpff wrote:incitatus wrote:hz747300 wrote:5th largest city in the US with OW hubs on either end, the LHR flight will be there for a while. Since there is a JV, it doesn't matter to BA or AA who is flying the route, right?
I wouldn't use the population of the city of Phoenix as a proxy for anything airline-related. The metro area itself is a better metric. Phoenix's is 16th in population. Then there are the already mentioned drivers of premium traffic.
Phoenix is actually up to 10th. It has a surprisingly small number of international connections for a city of its size, meaning it probably won't see F class anytime soon.
BuildingMyBento wrote:hpff wrote:incitatus wrote:
I wouldn't use the population of the city of Phoenix as a proxy for anything airline-related. The metro area itself is a better metric. Phoenix's is 16th in population. Then there are the already mentioned drivers of premium traffic.
Phoenix is actually up to 10th. It has a surprisingly small number of international connections for a city of its size, meaning it probably won't see F class anytime soon.
Isn't AZA the chosen airport for Canadian airlines?
davidjohnson6 wrote:Phoenix is not a place of abject poverty. Itsmetropolitan area has about 5 million people. That's more than enough to sustain a single route to a major hub in Europe
Denver's metropolitan area is about 3 million people, is a location of comparable distance from Europe and manages to sustain 2 competing alliances flying year round to London
Salt Lake City has a metropolitan population around 1.25 million people, yet has routes to London *and* Paris.
Yes a London-Phoenix route was a bit of a risk in the late 1990s by BA, but I'm just not seeing a reason to think London-Phoenix as a route might be at risk
BA744PHX wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:
Why would you think otherwise?
I was just thinking that with two airlines, even as OW partners, in the route, it might be a bit of overkill.....that and the aviation geek in me would hate to see BA be the one that left the route because....(in the case that I was right in my previous thinking and it was overkill) if AA was the one that left it, no big deal, we have AA planes landing here from about 50 other destinations daily..that's all.
If you think PHX-LHR is overkill, what are your thoughts on DFW-LHR?
AntonioMartin wrote:BA744PHX wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:I was just thinking that with two airlines, even as OW partners, in the route, it might be a bit of overkill.....that and the aviation geek in me would hate to see BA be the one that left the route because....(in the case that I was right in my previous thinking and it was overkill) if AA was the one that left it, no big deal, we have AA planes landing here from about 50 other destinations daily..that's all.
If you think PHX-LHR is overkill, what are your thoughts on DFW-LHR?
Well, I mean, after reading other comments here, I no longer feel it is overkill. But as far as DFW-LHR...well, DFW is better at drawing international airlines than PHX so it seems to me, I mean I guess, that the Dallas public is willing to and-or can afford to travel international better, and also that there are better business connections around the world between Dallas and international cities so maybe Dallas can support two airlines on that route? But again, i have been to Dallas a total of less than an hour (flight connecting in 2008) so I dont know exactly what Im talking about...
hpff wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:BA744PHX wrote:If you think PHX-LHR is overkill, what are your thoughts on DFW-LHR?
Well, I mean, after reading other comments here, I no longer feel it is overkill. But as far as DFW-LHR...well, DFW is better at drawing international airlines than PHX so it seems to me, I mean I guess, that the Dallas public is willing to and-or can afford to travel international better, and also that there are better business connections around the world between Dallas and international cities so maybe Dallas can support two airlines on that route? But again, i have been to Dallas a total of less than an hour (flight connecting in 2008) so I dont know exactly what Im talking about...
Dallas has over two million more people than Phoenix and also draws flyers from around the region (Austin/OKC/et cetera), unlike Phoenix which really is a spoke of Los Angeles when it comes to international travel networks. It's also significantly better geographically for connections, especially Asia/Australia/PNW-Mexico/Central America or Europe/smaller western cities and is supported by a massive hub.
LAXdude1023 wrote:hpff wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:Well, I mean, after reading other comments here, I no longer feel it is overkill. But as far as DFW-LHR...well, DFW is better at drawing international airlines than PHX so it seems to me, I mean I guess, that the Dallas public is willing to and-or can afford to travel international better, and also that there are better business connections around the world between Dallas and international cities so maybe Dallas can support two airlines on that route? But again, i have been to Dallas a total of less than an hour (flight connecting in 2008) so I dont know exactly what Im talking about...
Dallas has over two million more people than Phoenix and also draws flyers from around the region (Austin/OKC/et cetera), unlike Phoenix which really is a spoke of Los Angeles when it comes to international travel networks. It's also significantly better geographically for connections, especially Asia/Australia/PNW-Mexico/Central America or Europe/smaller western cities and is supported by a massive hub.
There are a few more factors at play here that make the difference.
1) First thing Id say is that population and demand dont really correlate. DFW is larger than South Florida, Boston, Houston, Vegas, Orlando, etc. and yet all those places have a lot more international O&D than DFW.
2) To really gage local demand by international carriers, you have to take out those that have joint ventures with the hub airline. For examples, AY, IB, and JL would probably not be at DFW if not for the AA hub.
3) The DFW area has a much larger and more ethnically diverse immigrant population than Phoenix does. That is going to drive demand for international carriers more so for North Texas.
LAXdude1023 wrote:hpff wrote:AntonioMartin wrote:Well, I mean, after reading other comments here, I no longer feel it is overkill. But as far as DFW-LHR...well, DFW is better at drawing international airlines than PHX so it seems to me, I mean I guess, that the Dallas public is willing to and-or can afford to travel international better, and also that there are better business connections around the world between Dallas and international cities so maybe Dallas can support two airlines on that route? But again, i have been to Dallas a total of less than an hour (flight connecting in 2008) so I dont know exactly what Im talking about...
Dallas has over two million more people than Phoenix and also draws flyers from around the region (Austin/OKC/et cetera), unlike Phoenix which really is a spoke of Los Angeles when it comes to international travel networks. It's also significantly better geographically for connections, especially Asia/Australia/PNW-Mexico/Central America or Europe/smaller western cities and is supported by a massive hub.
There are a few more factors at play here that make the difference.
1) First thing Id say is that population and demand dont really correlate. DFW is larger than South Florida, Boston, Houston, Vegas, Orlando, etc. and yet all those places have a lot more international O&D than DFW.
LAXdude1023 wrote:2) To really gage local demand by international carriers, you have to take out those that have joint ventures with the hub airline. For examples, AY, IB, and JL would probably not be at DFW if not for the AA hub.
dfw88 wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:2) To really gage local demand by international carriers, you have to take out those that have joint ventures with the hub airline. For examples, AY, IB, and JL would probably not be at DFW if not for the AA hub.
At the risk of veering off-topic, you've brought up an interesting thought experiment. Which international carriers would still serve which US cities if their JVs instantly disappeared (or never existed)? Obviously, for example, AF, KL, LH, BA, etc, would still serve the NYC area if those JVs didn't exist (though maybe the exact airport mix would change). Extending that would be an interesting topic of discussion in its own right.
As to DFW and PHX, it's already been discussed that BA started PHX before AA had a hub there, so that one is pretty safe. For DFW, while I agree that AY and IB are only there because of the AA hub I think JL might be there anyway due to the Japanese companies with large North American offices in the DFW area (Toyota, Kubota, etc). That being said, your point still stands.