That's actually 4 slots (2 Each Way) for your scenario. Since LHR is not a * Hub, connections are less available than say at FRA or MUC . I'd speculate that a CLT-LHR flight would be less profitable than CLT-LGW and may not be justifiable because of the LHR slot purchase prices. There's likely a good reason for using a 333 year round on the current CLT-LGW route - possibly high cargo yields and/or business contracts. It's my understanding that CLT-LGW has been profitable for several years. IMO, adding a 2nd PHL-LHR flight would require a 2nd pod equipped 332 to compete with (and take business away from) BA and could prove to be a futile effort, wasting a valuable resource for a trial year. Competing for BA contracts requires a sustained effort to excel in quality and services - something US has not seemed willing to do on any route - except possibly for TLV. PHL-LHR using the 762 was supposidly not producing acceptable yields. Hopefully the podded 332 and improved onboard services has improved the situation. Actually, the whole Open Skies hoopla never really materialized (so far) into a gold mine for any carrier - other than possibly those who sold slots, such as BMI. In fact, CO has reverted to using 757s on 3 of their 4 EWR-LHR flights.
CLT-HNL on the chopping block?
- Thread starter PHL
- Start date
- Status
CLT-LGW is profitable, however LHR is even more profitable. And consolidating operations to just LHR would be more cost effective
Please provide the basis for your statement that ".....(CLT-)LHR is (would be) more profitable (than CLT-LGW)". Why?
Consolidating a potentially loosing operation rarely leads to profitability.
the fact that every airline switched from lgw to lhr and that US dropped its lgw flight from phl should be sufficient. Just curious, what does LGW bring that LHR doesnt beat out? Yes it has higher landing fees, but the the airport is prefered by many b/c of its closeness to the city. Just for the biz traveler lets say in BNA, he could choose DL on BNA-ATL-LHR or BNA-CLT-LGW. I find it hard to believe that cargo contracts (unless most cargo is going to places south of london)) would not want to switch over to LHR. US will definitely switch over when they find a good pair of departure time slots
i do not appreciate your stereotyping of North Carolina. I live in one of the smaller rural counties ( we only have one highschool) and yes their is still some rebel flags waving, but in general we all are not "pig pickin" rednecks. I hope to become an airline pilot my self oneday....(17 now).......we all do not wish to be farmers and such.........think before you speak. thank you =)
First, CLT is not PHL it is 70+% connecting traffic and a significantly smaller MSA/cachment. What works for PHL may not for CLT. As I mentioned in my earlier post, PHL-LHR was not acceptably profitable using the 767 and I'm unaware of it's status using the podded 332. As I also alluded in my earlier post, I believe that most every ailine that switched from LGW to LHR, as a result of Open Skies, has downgraded their service (CO, DL) after determining there was less gold at the end of the rainbow than predicted. Why do you think CLT-LGW has been retained for so many years with a 333, rather than using the 767-200? Obviously many CLT travelers prefer LGW over LHR, else why would they consistently have supported the flight? There are now and have been for at least the last 9 months plenty of LHR slots available for purchase for just about any time period. If US felt that LHR had so much more potential than LGW, why haven't they shelled out the $8M for a CLT-LGW slot pair? If Charlotte business felt they needed and could support a LHR flight, why haven't they offered US an incentive to do so? - like offsetting the slot costs. It's obvious this discussion will lead to no credible conclusion and I therefore will simply agree to disagree with you. IMO, you'd be a bit more credible as a CLT flag waver if you periodically utilized the phrase, "IMO". 🙂 🙂
Edward
Veteran
Folks this has strayed. Lets get back to the topic of the op. Thanks,
FutureUScapt
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2005
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 13
Except that LHR IS a *A hub. Sure it's not the behemoth of a hub that FRA or MUC are, but BM does provide connections to secondary cities in the UK and Ireland which is more than what LGW can provide. CLT-LGW does fine but it needs to be shifted to CLT-LHR in the long term because that's where the premium traffic is headed to. Like you say though, US has likely determined that it is not worth the slot purchase until economic conditions improve.
The local CLT-LON traffic US carries isn't going to change much since the nonstop to LGW is still preferable to a connection elsewhere, but US is at a disadvantage for the business LON flow traffic since it serves LGW and not LHR (from markets that don't have service/suitable connections to PHL). Plus, there are savings that would result from closing the LGW station and consolidating operations in LHR.
Hmm, I'm surprised we actually disagree on this one considering it involves more international flights out of PHL. I believe that a second PHL-LHR flight is key to the overall success of the PHL-LHR route, and should be considered before CLT-LHR service is even though it likely won't be (see above, regarding savings of closing LGW). Both frequency and product, as you point out, are going to be important to winning corporate contracts on a route like PHL-LHR. While US improved its schedule slightly by moving up its eastbound flight by one hour, it still desperately needs an earlier eastbound flight that would leave PHL around 6pm, allowing business travelers to arrive in LHR at 6am and giving them an entire day to do business there (the current departure puts you in central LON around 11am at the earliest).
Yet you cast aside the fact that CO bought 5 pairs of slots for EWR-LHR flights (5th one starts this fall) in two separate transactions. Clearly, CO recognizes the need to be a player at LHR in the long-term.
But to get back on topic, I think there are much better uses for this plane than for CLT-HNL, if not immediately, certainly by the time next spring rolls around. It was good to see them give it a shot; I think year-round was a big mistake from the get go but clearly it performed poorly even in the high season. There is no reason to keep CLT-HNL around if it is unprofitable since US can still effectively serve the market via PHX. In fact even when flying from the east coast, it is less circuitous to go via PHX than via CLT.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,270
- Reaction score
- 306
Haven't seen in the QIK/SHARES, but word over at anet is that CLT-HNL is whacked as of 6 September. At least it's being kept through summer.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
As someone posted earlier, the website is still showing it returning on Dec 16 and continuing at least into Feb 2011. That may only mean that they haven't decided whether to run it after the Christmas/New Year holidays.
Jim
Jim
FutureUScapt
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2005
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 13
Jim,
The availability is actually zeroed out after 6SEP. When I originally looked, I was only looking at the schedule portion of US' website which did show it operating X123 in the fall and daily again as of 16DEC, but it appears that will not be case.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 571
What would the PIT behavior be in HNL?
What, you don't have IC Light... I can't believe it... and no porgies either! What kind of place is this?
It's way too sunny here.
Geez after that pig I need a bigger muumuu! Alohaaa yinz!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Dog Wonder
Veteran
What are 'porgies'. Have you ever been out of North Carolina?
Edward
Veteran
This one appears to have nothing else new.
- Status
