Crazy Daytripper
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 11
Starting in May 2012 CLT will get a 2nd FRA flight now on a 330 and a 332. Last year was a 767. I hope they will kept it this time.
CLT-FRA 2 Flights
- Thread starter Crazy Daytripper
- Start date
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Keep it?
It's a summer thing. It will arrive in May and be gone by the end of September. Just like the second FRA flight out of PHL does even year.
Its' not seasonal . It's showing year round from what I was told . The reason why it was cancelled last summer was because they could not get an adequate slot time .Now that the new runway is open in FRA, that should not be problem .
strangiatotheme
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 87
That was probably in reference to the flight never actually starting last summer. The flight is also (currently) loaded through October 19th, although that may or may not indicate that it's seasonal...didn't they extend some of the seasonal routes through October this year?
PHL-MUC flight numbers also changed to 708/709 to accomodate the second CLT-FRA flights (706/707).
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Well, I am doubtful that CLT would support two A330s or even an A330 and 767 all year. (Doesn't Lufthansa run an A330/340 daily, also?)
I would love to see them run two A330s year round, though. Might lure more A330 captains out of PHL and back to CLT
strangiatotheme
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 87
LH flies CLT-MUC. It would be odd to see US make CLT-FRA 2x daily year-round before they do the same with 702/703 out of PHL, but then you already have LH flying that route year-round too so that would make it 3x daily in that market. I guess we'll have to wait for an official announcement.
What's the rationale for continuing to build up CLT as a Trans-Atlantic connecting Hub, instead of growing PHL? I mean CLT is an easier connecting airport, but the international facilities at PHL are far superior and IMO better present US as "real" international carrier. This, plus the closing of the Envoy Lounge, the reduction of LH's PHL-FRA service to 5x weekly year round and Parker mentioning recently that PHL would survive as a major international transit point regardless of who the players are (my interpretation), makes me wonder if this downgrading of PHL/upgrading of CLT is a prerequisite for a specific merger. I can't imagine there is any longer a gate issue at PHL, since US now essentially has most of A-East and A-West for international services - especially since AA and its Club are now preparing to move to "E".
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
US Airways has little if any real concern about things like "image" and reputation. If these guys could make a superior return flying from SUX-FRA there would be a SUX-FRA route.
Andrew Nocella is a very smart guy and US rarely starts a route that ultimately fails. Some that don't yield what they might like but on balance this one area that US excels at.
LH appears to be doing well with CLT-MUC. I've flown that leg four times this fall, twice on a 340-600, once on a 340-300, and once on a 330-300 (LH appears to vary A/C size by season). All were 3-class cabin configurations and all were full.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
True, however as a Star Alliance Partner I can travel the world. LH out of FRA goes about anyplace you'd want to go and some you wouldn't.
Since a relatively small number of CLT passengers originate in CLT (O&D) versus PHL and there is an almost 400nm (800nm round trip) premium to fly CLT-Europe versus PHL-Europe (e.g., FRA, MAD), it may be reasonable to assume the buildup of CLT versus PHL has little to do with better profitability, or the availability of international gates (ref my previous post) - and I really doubt the above could be significantly offset by the difference in airport fees. It's even more suspicious that they are using (wasting) a 332 on the 2nd CLT-FRA flight - which has NO competition, rather than starting a new (rotation compatible) route out of PHL. So, unless I am missing something, the statements by Parker/Kirby regarding US's (new) strategy of concentrating growth on PHX, PHL and CLT, have really materialized into building up CLT as I have seen very little growth at PHL (other than ANC), or PHX over the past 3 years.
strangiatotheme
Senior
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 87
And this relates to CLT-MUC in what way?
StewGuy86
Senior
Parker addressed this issue to some extent at a Crew News a few months ago when someone asked a similar question. Per his response, for the time being PHL is pretty much maxed out on international routes that they feel would be profitable. As I'm sure you recall, we actually pulled out of several European cities because they were money losers for us out of PHL. While it's true that CLT can't support the level of int'l flying that PHL can, that also doesn't mean that anywhere and everywhere from PHL is an automatic money-maker. So while PHL is currently at what the company perceives to be its max, there's still room for some int'l expansion in CLT...hence the addition of seasonal DUB and MAD this year, and hopefully GRU (Sao Paulo) once the authority goes through.
