Getting lonely without the K?

[whlinder]

I hate to assist in turning this thread into an actual, useful thread, but since PHX PHLyer started it, I'll chime in.

I agree that DL will not be awarded ATL-PVG by default, and agree that US can possible structure their application so that it is on par with DL's. However I don't see how either of those applications will possibly prove that they will create more public benefits than an EWR-PVG flight. China Eastern's JFK-PVG only operates twice weekly IIRC, and I would bet the DOT would find that far more passengers would benefit by having daily nonstop service between New York and Shanghai than would benefit by having nonstop PHL/ATL-PVG.

UA and NW also can't be discounted, since in awarding the last round of slots to UA the DOT placed a lot of emphasis on UA's proposal to operate with a 744, with over 100 more seats per day than CO's 772. Depending on what their applications are for (SFO-CAN? LAX-PEK?) they can certainly win these slots.

 

[az_wild727]

you go kinglonjaw.....im 17 too

Seriously, or a sarcasm?

 

[PHL]

The largest metro areas are:
1. New York - covered by CO EWR-PEK, Air China JFK-PEK, China Eastern JFK-PVG
2. Los Angeles - China Eastern LAX-PVG, China Southern LAX-Guangzhou
3. Chicago - UA ORD-PEK&PVG AA ORD-PVG
4. Washington/Baltimore - UA just got IAD-PEK
5. San Francisco - Jet Airways PVG, UA SFO-PEK&PVG Air China SFO-PEK
6. Philadelphia - NO SERVICE TO ASIA, LET ALONE CHINA!!
7.
8.
9.
10. Atlanta - Service to Asia

Actually, PHL is higher up according to the US Census 7/1/06. Ironically, SFO, which falls far lower on the list, has the most service of anyone. And, it's very close to the PHX metro population.

1 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island NY–NJ–PA 18,818,536
2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana CA 12,950,129
3 Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL–IN–WI 9,505,748
4 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington TX 6,003,967
5 Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington PA–NJ–DE–MD 5,826,742
6 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown TX 5,539,949
7 Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach FL 5,463,857
8 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria DC–VA–MD–WV 5,290,400
9 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta GA 5,138,223
10 Detroit–Warren–Livonia MI 4,468,966
11 Boston–Cambridge–Quincy MA–NH 4,455,217
12 San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont CA 4,180,027
13 Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale AZ 4,039,182

 

[FWAAA]

I hate to assist in turning this thread into an actual, useful thread, but since PHX PHLyer started it, I'll chime in.

I agree that DL will not be awarded ATL-PVG by default, and agree that US can possible structure their application so that it is on par with DL's. However I don't see how either of those applications will possibly prove that they will create more public benefits than an EWR-PVG flight. China Eastern's JFK-PVG only operates twice weekly IIRC, and I would bet the DOT would find that far more passengers would benefit by having daily nonstop service between New York and Shanghai than would benefit by having nonstop PHL/ATL-PVG.

UA and NW also can't be discounted, since in awarding the last round of slots to UA the DOT placed a lot of emphasis on UA's proposal to operate with a 744, with over 100 more seats per day than CO's 772. Depending on what their applications are for (SFO-CAN? LAX-PEK?) they can certainly win these slots.

As usual, excellent points all around.

My guess is that CO wins with its NYC-PVG application, unless the DOT once again emphasizes the benefits of capacity via 747s rather than CO's 777s.

Probably a dozen airlines will apply, and I'd bet that LCC's application gets the same serious consideration as the other "no-chance" operators.

Then there's the chance that AA wises up and applies for ORD-PEK. Already served by UA, you say? So was ORD-PVG, and AA convinced the DOT that competition would benefit the public. ORD is a huge market with two huge hubs, after all.

Delta? From ATL? No chance. That market (ATL-China) is just too small.

 

[PHX PHLyer]

However I don't see how either of those applications will possibly prove that they will create more public benefits than an EWR-PVG flight. China Eastern's JFK-PVG only operates twice weekly IIRC, and I would bet the DOT would find that far more passengers would benefit by having daily nonstop service between New York and Shanghai than would benefit by having nonstop PHL/ATL-PVG.

UA and NW also can't be discounted, since in awarding the last round of slots to UA the DOT placed a lot of emphasis on UA's proposal to operate with a 744, with over 100 more seats per day than CO's 772. Depending on what their applications are for (SFO-CAN? LAX-PEK?) they can certainly win these slots.

Good points. I think that there may be more passengers in NYC that would benefit from an EWR-PVG route authority, but I don't think that the community would benefit enough. It's like US being granted the DCA-SRQ flight vs. DL DCA-SAV and FL DCA-IND/MDW. There was already a flight that US was operating DCA-SAV, and SRQ was found to benefit not only the most passengers but also the community. I think PHL-PVG would benefit the PHL area way more than EWR, despite the fact that more NYC based flyers would probably fly the EWR route than PHl flyers would fly the PHL route.

But another good point is the most passengers/capactiy side. That was one of the determining factors of UA's win last time around. Same with DCA-SRQ which was going to be operating with the E170, E190, and 733/319s on Saturdays. This was more than the DL CRJ-200 that was going to be offered on DCA-SAV. So that could definitely throw things for a loop.

But hey, most people wouldn't put it past US to put as many seats on the A340 as UA would put on a 744 😀