Any plans for a China application?

[FWAAA]

I'd put the odds of being awarded the 2008 frequencies to China at Slim to None. Same with Delta's application.

Of course, I was wrong with my 2007 prediction (I thought CO had a slam dunk), so I might be wrong yet again.

No real SE USA to China traffic, as the DOT found in 2005. How much between PHL and China that couldn't easily connect at ORD or NYC (or SFO/LAX/NRT)?

Maybe new entrant status would carry a lot of weight. Nevertheless, UA is dominant yet was awarded the 2007 frequencies despite CO's almost new entrant status.

 

[FutureUScapt]

Its nice to see that US has "thoughts" of expanding internationally. You may remember that US also had "intentions" of flying PHL-NRT back in 2000, but then amazingly "couldn't find any available airplanes" after ALPA refused to allow codesharing with UA and AA.

That said, if this application is to stand a fighting chance, I have to believe that US would file for PHL-PVG. PEK has already has adequate service to the east coast (UA to IAD, CO to EWR, & CA to JFK) and does not really need another. On the other hand, PVG has only no service by a US airline to the east coast (MU flies a few flights a week to JFK but that is apparently struggling). Additionally, in COs application, they stated that travel to PVG is growing at a faster rate than travel to PEK is.

The hardest part will be proving why US should win the authority instead of COs to EWR, which will undoubtedly have more o/d or DLs application to ATL, which will undoubtedly offer more connecting possibilities. Possibilities out of PHX and CLT look even weaker. PHX offers virtually nothing that can't be reached through SFO and I can't believe that the o/d market would be greater than PHLs, but I could be wrong. CLT-PVG is a sure way to lose, since ATL is a much bigger market. CLT-PEK might not be a horrible idea since it would be the only flight to PEK that would allow convenient connections to several cities in the southeast, but o/d would be a major issue.

I think the only way US wins this one is that the DOT decides that it absolutely needs to choose a new entrant and that somehow US is able to convince them PHL-PVG would be more beneficial than ATL-PVG

 

[zethya]

... if this application is to stand a fighting chance, I have to believe that US would file for PHL-PVG.....

The hardest part will be proving why US should win the authority instead of COs to EWR, which will undoubtedly have more o/d or DLs application to ATL, which will undoubtedly offer more connecting possibilities. Possibilities out of PHX and CLT look even weaker. PHX offers virtually nothing that can't be reached through SFO and I can't believe that the o/d market would be greater than PHLs, but I could be wrong.....

The hardest part will be proving why US should win the authority instead of COs to EWR, which will undoubtedly have more o/d or DLs application to ATL, which will undoubtedly offer more connecting possibilities...

I agree that PHL-PVG may have a better chance for approval than PEK.

PHL's International O&D (4M) is significantly larger than PHX (1.7M). Plus the majority of the PHX International O&D is to Mexico and Canada.

The DOT will likely base it's decision on which Region and it's local population would best benefit from and support the new service. Applying on the basis of "connectivity" could in fact be a negative.

 

[A330US]

what is the docket number regarding the china application

 

[Travelpro72]

Is US the first airline to apply for a route without the a/c to support it?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Carriers Line Up Against Delta '08 China Flights

"Four more carriers -- three incumbents and another aspirant in the market -- have joined US Airways in opposing Delta's application in a still-uninvited competition for 2008 U.S.-China frequencies (DAILY, Feb. 12)"

Jim

 

[whlinder]

Is US the first airline to apply for a route without the a/c to support it?

In the past, Primaris has filed for beyond-perimeter DCA slots. And they don't have a single plane yet to support any route.

 

[FWAAA]

Carriers Line Up Against Delta '08 China Flights

"Four more carriers -- three incumbents and another aspirant in the market -- have joined US Airways in opposing Delta's application in a still-uninvited competition for 2008 U.S.-China frequencies (DAILY, Feb. 12)"

Jim

I like the "univited" part - the DOT hasn't yet invited applications, yet DL and US have taken it upon themselves to apply anyway. As far as I know, the DOT doesn't add (or subtract) points for overeagerness. 😀

A rare (for me, anyway) error in the aviation week reporting:

Unless the U.S. and China negotiate additional opportunities, the 2008 proceeding will select one new U.S.-China carrier to join incumbents United, Northwest, American and Continental, and award as many as 14 weekly frequencies -- seven for passenger service and seven for passenger or cargo. At least half the frequencies would have to go to the newly authorized carrier for the designation to have meaning. Hawaiian termed the four incumbents "the 'usual suspects,'" and Delta would be "more of the same."

There's no requirement that the DOT select a new carrier; the treaty permits it, but nothing requires it.

 

[N905TW]

Is US the first airline to apply for a route without the a/c to support it?

TWA was awarded 7 weekly flights STL-NRT back in 1998, scheduled to begin with the 1999 summer schedule change. TWA proposed to operate the route with true 767-200ER equipment which were going to be purchased or leased, not the 12 converted domestic 767-200ERs in the fleet at the time as they did not have the range.

Link

So there have been awards in the past to carriers without the actual aircraft in the fleet at the time of application, but would we be lucky enough this time around when competing with other applicants who DO have the planes available now?

 

[Cosmo]

There's no requirement that the DOT select a new carrier; the treaty permits it, but nothing requires it.

Wait, it gets better. Not only does the DOT have merely the option, not the requirement, to select a new carrier (as you have noted), but even if it DOES select a new carrier, it doesn't have to be a passenger carrier.

Although I believe that it is quite unlikely that the DOT would select a new cargo carrier in the next China route proceeding, it's still not impossible. And such a selection would come out of the pool of cargo frequencies for U.S. carriers, of which not all currently available are being used, leaving another seven weekly frequencies available for incumbent passenger carriers effective March 25, 2008. Under this admittedly unlikely scenario, and depending on which routes the incumbents actually apply for when the DOT begins the next China route case, IMHO Continental would be awarded the passenger frequencies for EWR-PVG service (the route for which I believe it will almost certainly apply).

This just goes to show that the next China route case could be very interesting indeed, with lots of twists and turns along the way (and I haven't even discussed the available frequencies to Group 2 cities in China -- all those other than PEK, PVG and CAN 😛 ).

 

[ringmaruf]

This just goes to show that the next China route case could be very interesting indeed, with lots of twists and turns along the way (and I haven't even discussed the available frequencies to Group 2 cities in China -- all those other than PEK, PVG and CAN 😛 ).

There are currently already unused Group 2 frequencies available to anyone who asks for them. No one wants them.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

There are currently already unused Group 2 frequencies available to anyone who asks for them. No one wants them.

What's a Group 2 Frequency?

 

[ringmaruf]

What's a Group 2 Frequency?

A frequency that can be used to serve any point in China other than Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou. (Those are called the "Group 1" cities.) The Group 2 cities are obviously smaller, and so far there's no airline who finds serving any of them to be viable commercially.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

A frequency that can be used to serve any point in China other than Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou. (Those are called the "Group 1" cities.) The Group 2 cities are obviously smaller, and so far there's no airline who finds serving any of them to be viable commercially.

I would have thought UA or NW would gobbled them up. Especially from SFO or LAX.

 

[zethya]

Is US the first airline to apply for a route without the a/c to support it?

US has not applied for, nor has it been invited to apply for, a route to China. The only airline that has formally applied is Delta, but without invitation. US, CO, NW, AA and HA have all issued a formal objection to DL's application, which essentially complains that the DOT should not be considering it unless their applications were also considered. Each stated that they intend to file for the route, with some indicating a U.S. point of origin. US's letter did not.

An interesting paragraph in DL's filing for the route was the availability of an aircraft (777-200ER), it's estimated annual fuel consumption (ATL-PVG) AND the fact that the fuel and aircraft would be used on other existing routes if they did not receive the China award. This is why I feel Parker must acquire the needed aircraft very soon (2 or more 340/500s or 777s) if he is serious about this expansion and in fact use them on another long haul route this year, or at least schedule them to start service before January 2008. He should consider and advertise the China route as part of a global expansion, which includes PVG. US could start, for example, PHL to a 2nd tier China city, or better yet PHL to SEL as a non-alliance code share with KE - as examples. Without the aircraft in hand already flying a 6000+nm route, I'm afraid China is unatainable in 2008 without changes in the bi-laterals.