FWAA,
You don't read the company news letter do you?
No, I don't, because I don't work for US. Kirby's wish list is impressive, but nothing in the newsletter contradicts what I posted. Don't get me wrong - I may not be correct, but the employee newsletter doesn't contradict my post.
Q. With more A330-200s coming on line in 2013-14 and the B767s staying until 2017, what possible new international destinations can we look forward to from PHL, CLT and PHX?
A During State of the Airline, President Scott Kirby explained that we’re not sure yet because it depends on what’s happening with fuel prices and the economy. He said, “We hope there are some growth opportunities from PHL, particularly longer haul destinations like Istanbul, but that depends on fuel, the economy and what’s happening in the Middle East. From CLT we’re working on Sao Paulo and from PHX we’d like to serve London Heathrow and possibly Frankfurt or Narita. From PHL we’d like to do Narita and Beijing. These are all things that may happen, but they depend on what happens at a macroeconomic level. Our aircraft order gives us flexibility, and we can use these aircraft either as replacement aircraft or to grow into those markets.
That's a whole lot of words that don't add up to much commitment. Most airlines order widebody planes with destinations in mind. Sometimes the destinations change over time, but it sounds like US ordered these planes without much of a plan. "Let's order some widebody planes for delivery several years from now and we'll find routes for them by time they get here."
Kirby mentioned IST, NRT and PEK as possible PHL destinations. When US applied for PHL-PEK (and won the award), US said that it would obtain used A340s or other capable aircraft since the A330s don't have the useful range (presumably without significant weight restrictions). The A330s still don't have that much useful range, so those destinations would have to wait on the A350s. IST? That's within range of the A330. Yes, US currently lacks suitable aircraft for these routes, but the ultimate arrival of planes does not mean the routes are economically viable (or potentially profitable or make any sense at all).
From CLT, he mentioned GRU. That makes sense, and is within range of the A330s. Not a whole lot of O&D between CLT and Brasil, but US doesn't have any hubs where the significant O&D occurs, so you have to play the hand you're dealt. Perhaps NYC and WAS traffic to/from Brasil doesn't mind connecting at CLT.
From PHX, he mentioned LHR, FRA and NRT. Assuming all can be flown by A330s (NRT may be a stretch due to the typically hot weather at PHX as I mentioned before), they don't look like home runs. If PHX-NRT was viable and enjoyed sufficient O&D, have to wonder why ANA and JAL have ignored it for so long.
LHR? BA has flown PHX-LHR for quite some time, and if there was demand for another nonstop flight, I'm guessing that BA would have added one.
FRA? If US and AA combine, flights to Star Alliance hubs would probably be in danger and it's doubtful that any new ones would be added. Besides, if it made sense, don't you think that LH would already be flying it? Since US isn't in the joint venture, LH and UA wouldn't have to share any of the profits with US (same as all other TATL flights where US is on the outside looking in) but could count on US to fill it up from that huge PHX hub, right? I can only assume that the failure of UA and LH to fly to FRA from PHX has something to do with its profitability.
From the sound of it, a combination of AA and US would result in an airline with a surplus of widebody planes (at least temporarily) as Tempe figures out where to fly them. The OP made it sound like AA already possessed extra widebody planes that could be used to begin routes that really don't make sense. Yes, US has some widebody planes on the way. Unless their delivery dates are again deferred. But PHL-HKG and PHX-NRT aren't flights that the combined US-AA should begin by pulling AA widebodies off existing flights. PHL-HKG and PHX-NRT are unlikely to ever exist.
