UA Applies For Daily DCA-LAX Service

[Cosmo]

OK, maybe this was the part of the codeshare equation that I was missing. So let's see if I've finally got the right idea.

Are you saying that if a PVD passenger (just to pick one US nonstop market into DCA) flies on a US PVD-DCA flight with a UA ticket and then connects to UA's proposed DCA-LAX flight, then UA keeps all of the revenue and US gets nothing? Would the reverse also be true -- i.e., the passenger flies on a US ticket from PVD to DCA and then on another US ticket from DCA to LAX on UA's flight, then US keeps all of the revenue and UA gets nothing? Are there any offsetting fees (on a per-passenger or per-RPM basis, for example) that the ticketing carrier would pay to the operating carrier in either situation?

If I understand the above correctly, DCA in effect becomes a hub (focus city?) for UA with regard to the LAX market. And it would appear to do the same for US. But wouldn't the benefit to UA from any behind-DCA to LAX passengers on its nonstop flights be related to the extent to which those passengers are ticketed on UA all the way to LAX rather than on US?

Sorry to keep going back and forth with you on this, flyer, but I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how US' flights into DCA would help UA's proposed DCA-LAX flight. I appreciate your time (and patience

 

[avek00]

Sorry, but I have to come out against UA's application for the slot exemption. In practice, the purpose of the exemption has been to give entrant/low-fare/small-fry airlines a rare competitive advantage by offering nonstop access from DCA to a hub/focus city which could compete effectively with the multiple connecting alternatives offered by the majors. Granting the slot exemption to United severely undermines the spirit in which they were created, IMHO.

 

[UAL777flyer]

If UA passengers fly on US operated flights, US pockets that revenue. If US passengers fly on UA operated flights, UA pockets that revenue. Each airline keeps the revenue from the passengers who fly on THEIR aircraft.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 9:30:23 AM avek00 wrote:

Sorry, but I have to come out against UA's application for the slot exemption. In practice, the purpose of the exemption has been to give entrant/low-fare/small-fry airlines a rare competitive advantage by offering nonstop access from DCA to a "hub"/focus city which could compete effectively with the multiple connecting alternatives offered by the majors. Granting the slot exemption to United severely undermines the spirit in which they were created, IMHO.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Low fare airlines now have the advantage, where have you been for the last two years? Is it better for a low fare/low pay airline with only O&D traffic to fly the route or an international airline with traffic from all over the word. i guess the little guys are good though, it gives the White house an occasional free flyby.

 

[N230UA]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 217 PM Busdrvr wrote:

... [sic] an international airline with traffic from all over the word. i guess...
----------------
[/blockquote]

Let's be realistic. United is not THAT large of an international carrier. 2/3 to 3/4 of United's RPMs still come from the domestic market. And on a route like LAX-DCA, you've got international passengers coming from limited UA on-line connections (South Pacific, Central America, Tokyo, and not even Hong Kong) and *alliance destinations.

Realistically though, there isn't that much *alliance cross-traffic as a % of pax on a typical LAX-IAD flight. And realistically, how many international passengers would be on a LAX-DCA flight?

 

[motnot]

For one, avek, I agree with you.

And busdrvr, it's not meant to be a point-to-point route for a low-fare carriers. The carrier must offer beyond-perimeter benefits (connections). AWA, FRNT and ALK all would do that.

 

[UAL777flyer]

Please tell me how UA doesn't offer beyond LAX connections to any potential DCA-LAX customers. There are numerous mainline and UAX connections in/out of LAX that offer clear benefits to the consumer.

 

[motnot]

I never said UAL didn't. But UAL is not a new entrant carrier, and so I think it will have little chance to win those slot exemptions.

 

[JS]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 916 AM UAL777flyer wrote:

If UA passengers fly on US operated flights, US pockets that revenue. If US passengers fly on UA operated flights, UA pockets that revenue. Each airline keeps the revenue from the passengers who fly on THEIR aircraft.
----------------
[/blockquote]

What happens if a passenger buys a GSP-LAX fare, and flys GSP-US-DCA-UA-LAX? If there is an interline connection, there has to be a way of breaking up the single fare in two pieces, one for US and one for UA.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/21/2002 1:17:08 PM N297UX wrote:

Well, I'd have to say that among all the applicants, United and Frontier are the only real contenders. TWA flew the route and it didn't quite materialize like they thought it would, then it was yanked away when AA/TWA happened.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Now that the DOT has approved the US/UA codeshare, I think US's and UA's chances of getting the slots are slim to none, since the two carriers already dominate the local Washington market...

Giving Frontier another slot for DEN would be in line with the intent of the Air-21 program, but failing that I'd like to see AA get it, since they're the only major who applied and isn't part of the codeshare follies.

 

[motnot]

AA is not a new entrant carrier at DCA, either, so I think the odds of AA getting this route are also slim to none.

Read the DOT's 9/27 letter National for a good explanation of what a new entrant is:

[A HREF=http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf1a/194784_web.pdf]Read it here.[/A]

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Using language in that example, none of the carriers who have applied should get slots, since all of them already have a presence at DCA! But that's only one of the four criteria used to determine how those slots are assigned.

My only point on if LAX is made the end-point for the slots (as opposed to SEA, DEN, SLC, and LAS, all of which are in the running), is that it would probably end up going to AA, given the DOJ's concerns over the combined US/UA presence at DCA/IAD, plus the fact that AA had operated the slot up until the point it was reassigned to Alaska for their SEA-DCA service.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/6/2002 6:59:07 PM eolesen wrote:
[P][BR]Plus the fact that AA had operated the slot up until the point it was reassigned to Alaska for their SEA-DCA service.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P]
[P][FONT size=1]How'd we do that? That went back to the DOT after we purchased TWA.[/FONT][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]