Just would like to know what everyone ideas. I left China out because that one is the Obvious One.
2008 New International Destinations
- Thread starter BuffaloJoe
- Start date
OP
Prince of PAWOBs
Veteran
OP
WAW has 3x daily 767 service from the NYC area (1 EWR, 2 JFK), and soon CO will likely be stepping in with 757 service in 2008 (according to a senior CO pilot I know). Would be nice, though, from PHL, since there is the *A connectivity and the potential business on the route.
Tokyo has already been discussed by management as the next Asian route after China approval.
Birmingham because of the LCC infrastructure already existing in the UK. That could be a relatively easy one to serve on a 757.
Tokyo has already been discussed by management as the next Asian route after China approval.
Birmingham because of the LCC infrastructure already existing in the UK. That could be a relatively easy one to serve on a 757.
But why Birmingham, UK?
OH NO!!! FLASHBACK TO MY SEX PISTOLS DAYS!!! PUNK'S NOT DEAD 'CAUSE IT'S STILL IN ME HEAD!!!
Bodies
She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no one who killed her baby
She sent the letters from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace
I'm tempted to say none of the above. Warsaw and Copenhagem make some sense due to * alliance, but definitely do not warrant daily service. Oslo, Helsinki, Hamburg, Lyon, Moscow Tel Aviv could be better served via * alliance codeshare (LH, SK). NRT would be nice if US had the aircraft and slots.
I think it would be better for US to improve service to the cities it already serves and to focus on flying to European * alliance partner hubs.
I think it would be better for US to improve service to the cities it already serves and to focus on flying to European * alliance partner hubs.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
That is why I put "If they get the aircraft" in it. I should have broken it down to zones. Warsaw I think would do rather well from PHL, I for sure would do it, especially since my Mom wants to go there to see the birthplace of her Parents. I was surprised this year with them adding Brussells. I know they tried it a few years ago but only to get pulled after 9/11. Plus isn't it rather in close proximity to Amsterdam? Zurich is going to be doing rather well I think. An alternate to the Alps instead of Munich.
US was partnered with both Swissair and Sabena, who were both also partners of each other. It was a nice international mini-alliance(along with Qantas and a few others). Having Brussels would have provided a nice feed system for customers on either side of the Atlantic.
But Sabena went bankrupt in 2001 after Swissair failed to pay them a promised 284M Euro investment to help keep them alive. Ironically, Swissair didn't pay because they, too, were in financial dire straits. Swissair ceased ops in Oct 2001, and Sabena followed a month later. The US route to Belgium was useless at the time.
I suspect that going back now has a few good reasons - one of which being the *A and increased route network as a result. Another is that they can operate it with the 757E's (i.e. cheaper), which wasn't an option back then.
But Sabena went bankrupt in 2001 after Swissair failed to pay them a promised 284M Euro investment to help keep them alive. Ironically, Swissair didn't pay because they, too, were in financial dire straits. Swissair ceased ops in Oct 2001, and Sabena followed a month later. The US route to Belgium was useless at the time.
I suspect that going back now has a few good reasons - one of which being the *A and increased route network as a result. Another is that they can operate it with the 757E's (i.e. cheaper), which wasn't an option back then.
Geographically BRU is a good "feed system" for customers, but that's about it. With LH hubs in FRA and MUC US should be advertising that with the * alliance you can get to more or less anywhere in Europe. Smaller * alliance partners with hubs in places like CPH and VIE also provide a nice niche (SK for Scandinavian countries, OS for former communist eastern Europe block countries for example).
I think right now US flies to more than enough cities in Europe on its own. There is no need to waste resources to add more "secondary" cities to the system just for the sake of having it on your route map. Milk the * alliance for all its worth!
I think you're over-estimating the market from USA to former eastern European countires such as Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary. Sure, American tourists flood those cities/countries in the summer, but what about the rest of the year? People in those countries typically earn ~$10-15000 per year, they're NOT going to take vacations in the USA, and definitely NOT to PHL or PIT or CLT or PHX. Plus each of those countries flag carriers offers service to the USA: usually to JFK (OK, LOT, Malev) and usually at cheap prices (Czech Airlines prices in the off season ~$500 tops).
Warsaw!! Booming economy, Star connectivity, and a great city. LOT is a pretty good little airline--they're certainly better than our little desert-based hovel.
It seems Asia is going to be where the money is to be made. Most of the west coast flights to NRT HKG and TPE are heavily booked year round. But would definantly need code sharing with someone once there.
I think that someday you'll see US in most of these destinations, atleast on a seasonal basis. I would've switched out Lyon, France for Nice though. I also doubt you'll see US in Hamburg or Helsenki, though I wouldn't be surprised if CO or DL (re)started service to the latter.
OSL and BHX are within the range of 757s and CO is the only other US airline to serve the two. It would be very easy for US to start these routes - all they need to do is certify some more 757s for ETOPS.
TLV and SVO are also good candidates but that'll depend on what additional widebody aircraft US can come up with (332s, 0r 787s later on, would be ideal).
Personally my guesses for next year: BHX, SVO, and TLV
OSL and BHX are within the range of 757s and CO is the only other US airline to serve the two. It would be very easy for US to start these routes - all they need to do is certify some more 757s for ETOPS.
TLV and SVO are also good candidates but that'll depend on what additional widebody aircraft US can come up with (332s, 0r 787s later on, would be ideal).
Personally my guesses for next year: BHX, SVO, and TLV
Similar threads
