AIRLINES would schedule the same plane to fly one leg to LHR from the west coast and return to the east coast( or ORD) or vice versa. This way using 2 777 AA or UA can maximize the use of their international fleet. Since AA and UA fly often to the big three European airports( LHR, CDG, and FRA) they can use planes more efficiently then a plane flying a roundtrip from the same hub.
UA wants MIA-LHR
- Thread starter MAH4546
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter
- #32
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 10
17 AM JFK777 wrote:
MAH4546,
MIA would offer rich connections all over the Caribean and Northern Latin America for an Asian airline. Look at SWISS, by serving Miami they pickmup passengers from all over the region. Your previous observation about MIA being a goldmine for SWISS has a large part to do with connections.
BOS & PHL may be larger but they are also close to 2 other cities served by all the previous Asian airlines. Washington DC and New York. Philadelphia is well served to Asia out of Newark, CAL flies to both HKG(nonstop) and NRT(nonstop and connections on NWA) & SIA flies via AMS 4x weekly. IAD has been served by ANA since 1986. JFK is the biggest destination for these Asian airlines, JFK has 5 airlines with service to NRT( ANA, JAL, AA, UA, & Northworst)plus Cathay, SIA and every other airline from a country with a 747. BOS needs a flight to NRT, but given its geographc position it has to fly on O&D tarffic only, that right now seems a long shot.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with most of your points, though I don't see what IAD (which also has KE service, BTW) has to do with anything. IAD is not that close to PHL to consider it an alternate airport. EWR is, though, and that is also why PHL lacks in European service (just AF, 2xBA, LH, 7xUS) despite its size.
As for Asian service to MIA. Give it time. I think it will happen in the future. 3-4 years is a good time frame. There is room for one Asian carrier in Miami (maybe two, but that is it), with NRT, TPE, and ICN being the most viable gateways (if not the only viable gateways). Possibilities:
JAL-A 744 service, 3x a week to start, could connect to the whole AA Latin/Caribean network nicely.
ANA-ANA was rumoured to be looking at MIA as a launch destination for thier A340. As we all know, they never did takeup that A340 order. A service similar to JAL's could work, though ANA has less feed, since they are with Star.
Singapore Airlines-Any Singapore Airlines service to MIA would be via Europe. Madrid offers a great option, as it could connect Madrid to Star's Latin network. Just like the SQ flights to ORD, JFK, and EWR, most of the traffic would be going between MIA and a European point, not going onto SIN. However, I don't see SQ serving MIA before they serve IAD (before they decided on LAS, though, IAD and MIA were also in the running for SIA service).
Korean Air-This is, IMO, the most likely carrier, for the sole reason that they have shown the most interest to MIA airport authorities, including possibly doing a continutation leg to GRU or as a continuation of the DFW flight. 4x a week 744, I could see KE doing it when the economy gets better and if MIA pushes hard enough for them to try. Extremely limited feed, though, with only some AeroMexico flights and Delta Connection to Orlando and Tallahasse.
Emirates-Not the Orient, but Asia none the less, MIA is one Emirates short list for US service. Though LAX, ORD, and JFK are coming first. Than IAD, IAH, and SFO. MIA and BOS last. That is assuming EK's US launch goes perfect.
American Airlines- MIA-NRT is supposedly stretching the limits of thier 772ERs, but I don't know that for sure. If they expand in Tokyo even further than they have, it's possible, but I don't see it happening.
Varig, LanChile- Varig rumours are still going around that when if get approval for the 3 extra slots, they will do MIA-NRT, still nothing comfired. If LanChile also extends it's reach to Asia, a NRT service with 340s routed through MIA is the most logical choice, making use of the oneWorld connections and LanChile's very, very loyal customer base at MIA, where they fly to eight destinations in seven countries.
----------------
On 9/11/2002 10
17 AM JFK777 wrote: MAH4546,
MIA would offer rich connections all over the Caribean and Northern Latin America for an Asian airline. Look at SWISS, by serving Miami they pickmup passengers from all over the region. Your previous observation about MIA being a goldmine for SWISS has a large part to do with connections.
BOS & PHL may be larger but they are also close to 2 other cities served by all the previous Asian airlines. Washington DC and New York. Philadelphia is well served to Asia out of Newark, CAL flies to both HKG(nonstop) and NRT(nonstop and connections on NWA) & SIA flies via AMS 4x weekly. IAD has been served by ANA since 1986. JFK is the biggest destination for these Asian airlines, JFK has 5 airlines with service to NRT( ANA, JAL, AA, UA, & Northworst)plus Cathay, SIA and every other airline from a country with a 747. BOS needs a flight to NRT, but given its geographc position it has to fly on O&D tarffic only, that right now seems a long shot.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with most of your points, though I don't see what IAD (which also has KE service, BTW) has to do with anything. IAD is not that close to PHL to consider it an alternate airport. EWR is, though, and that is also why PHL lacks in European service (just AF, 2xBA, LH, 7xUS) despite its size.
As for Asian service to MIA. Give it time. I think it will happen in the future. 3-4 years is a good time frame. There is room for one Asian carrier in Miami (maybe two, but that is it), with NRT, TPE, and ICN being the most viable gateways (if not the only viable gateways). Possibilities:
JAL-A 744 service, 3x a week to start, could connect to the whole AA Latin/Caribean network nicely.
ANA-ANA was rumoured to be looking at MIA as a launch destination for thier A340. As we all know, they never did takeup that A340 order. A service similar to JAL's could work, though ANA has less feed, since they are with Star.
Singapore Airlines-Any Singapore Airlines service to MIA would be via Europe. Madrid offers a great option, as it could connect Madrid to Star's Latin network. Just like the SQ flights to ORD, JFK, and EWR, most of the traffic would be going between MIA and a European point, not going onto SIN. However, I don't see SQ serving MIA before they serve IAD (before they decided on LAS, though, IAD and MIA were also in the running for SIA service).
Korean Air-This is, IMO, the most likely carrier, for the sole reason that they have shown the most interest to MIA airport authorities, including possibly doing a continutation leg to GRU or as a continuation of the DFW flight. 4x a week 744, I could see KE doing it when the economy gets better and if MIA pushes hard enough for them to try. Extremely limited feed, though, with only some AeroMexico flights and Delta Connection to Orlando and Tallahasse.
Emirates-Not the Orient, but Asia none the less, MIA is one Emirates short list for US service. Though LAX, ORD, and JFK are coming first. Than IAD, IAH, and SFO. MIA and BOS last. That is assuming EK's US launch goes perfect.
American Airlines- MIA-NRT is supposedly stretching the limits of thier 772ERs, but I don't know that for sure. If they expand in Tokyo even further than they have, it's possible, but I don't see it happening.
Varig, LanChile- Varig rumours are still going around that when if get approval for the 3 extra slots, they will do MIA-NRT, still nothing comfired. If LanChile also extends it's reach to Asia, a NRT service with 340s routed through MIA is the most logical choice, making use of the oneWorld connections and LanChile's very, very loyal customer base at MIA, where they fly to eight destinations in seven countries.
MAH4546,
That is entirely false and I'm not sure where you heard it.
ALL British Airways flights from the United States are full of mostly transiting passengers in LHR.
MIA is no exception.
Infact, US flights make up a very very big chunk of that 80% of transiting passengers.
Actually, no one knows how long the DEN upgrade to a 744 will remain. So far, British Airways hasn't done equipment changes beyond the month of February so right now, it shows up as a 744 for only 1 month. But that doesn't mean it will be a 744 for only 1 month. Next time British Airways does the next batch of schedule updates, you will probably see the 744 extended.
Again, no one knows how long it will remain a 744. And actually it will be operated by one of the 3-class 744s and not the 4-class ones. Which means higher density.
Regards
That is entirely false and I'm not sure where you heard it.
ALL British Airways flights from the United States are full of mostly transiting passengers in LHR.
MIA is no exception.
Infact, US flights make up a very very big chunk of that 80% of transiting passengers.
Actually, no one knows how long the DEN upgrade to a 744 will remain. So far, British Airways hasn't done equipment changes beyond the month of February so right now, it shows up as a 744 for only 1 month. But that doesn't mean it will be a 744 for only 1 month. Next time British Airways does the next batch of schedule updates, you will probably see the 744 extended.
Again, no one knows how long it will remain a 744. And actually it will be operated by one of the 3-class 744s and not the 4-class ones. Which means higher density.
Regards
- Thread Starter
- #34
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 7
23 PM UA777DEN wrote:
MAH4546,
That is entirely false and I'm not sure where you heard it.
ALL British Airways flights from the United States are full of mostly transiting passengers in LHR.
MIA is no exception.
Infact, US flights make up a very very big chunk of that 80% of transiting passengers.
Actually, no one knows how long the DEN upgrade to a 744 will remain. So far, British Airways hasn't done equipment changes beyond the month of February so right now, it shows up as a 744 for only 1 month. But that doesn't mean it will be a 744 for only 1 month. Next time British Airways does the next batch of schedule updates, you will probably see the 744 extended.
Again, no one knows how long it will remain a 744. And actually it will be operated by one of the 3-class 744s and not the 4-class ones. Which means higher density.
Regards
----------------
[/blockquote]
So you are telling me they have seven daily flights between London and JFK (plus Concorde services) for mostly transiting passengers? I'm sorry, but I doubt it. Miami-London is a huge orgin & destination market, along with New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco-London. These are flights that have very high orgin & destination figures, especially because these cities have more choices to Europe than Denver, San Diego, and others, so the transiting passengers are more spread out amongst other carriers.
DEN is getting medium-density 744s, which is 3-class as you said. High-density BA aircraft (I think they got rid if all their HD 747s a few months ago) do not have first class (they have biz, economy+, and economy). Only Orlando and Tampa get them in the US. BA's schedules are uploaded through the end of the winter 2002/03 season, which is for most airlines until 7 April 2003.
----------------
On 9/11/2002 7
23 PM UA777DEN wrote: MAH4546,
That is entirely false and I'm not sure where you heard it.
ALL British Airways flights from the United States are full of mostly transiting passengers in LHR.
MIA is no exception.
Infact, US flights make up a very very big chunk of that 80% of transiting passengers.
Actually, no one knows how long the DEN upgrade to a 744 will remain. So far, British Airways hasn't done equipment changes beyond the month of February so right now, it shows up as a 744 for only 1 month. But that doesn't mean it will be a 744 for only 1 month. Next time British Airways does the next batch of schedule updates, you will probably see the 744 extended.
Again, no one knows how long it will remain a 744. And actually it will be operated by one of the 3-class 744s and not the 4-class ones. Which means higher density.
Regards
----------------
[/blockquote]
So you are telling me they have seven daily flights between London and JFK (plus Concorde services) for mostly transiting passengers? I'm sorry, but I doubt it. Miami-London is a huge orgin & destination market, along with New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco-London. These are flights that have very high orgin & destination figures, especially because these cities have more choices to Europe than Denver, San Diego, and others, so the transiting passengers are more spread out amongst other carriers.
DEN is getting medium-density 744s, which is 3-class as you said. High-density BA aircraft (I think they got rid if all their HD 747s a few months ago) do not have first class (they have biz, economy+, and economy). Only Orlando and Tampa get them in the US. BA's schedules are uploaded through the end of the winter 2002/03 season, which is for most airlines until 7 April 2003.
Heard yesterday that the second LHR will operate as a 777 now. Guess they might be filling faster than they thought.
Thanks JFK777. I guess European carriers could also fly to the west coast by utilizing their planes the same way? Are there any major European cities that are too far to use one plane to the west coast? For instance, would LAX-MXP, MXP-JFK allow Alitalia to provide service with one plane?
Thanks.
Thanks.
So you are telling me they have seven daily flights between London and JFK (plus Concorde services) for mostly transiting passengers? I'm sorry, but I doubt it.
That is correct. Even the Concorde has a large number of O&D passengers on the LHR end.
There were some figures released a while ago that showed how much O&D LHR has compared to the amount of traffic it gets and it's very little. Just 20% of LHR's entire traffic is O&D. The remaining 80% is all connecting traffic. That should automatically tell you that BA's LHR flights on the LHR end are mostly transiting passengers and JFK or MIA are no exceptions.
Don't forget Mark. LHR is a gateway.
London is not the world which means many want to go to places other than London. LHR is a gateway to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The possibilities are endless and saying that most of these passengers on the LHR end are simply O&D is absurd. That would mean British Airway's other flights to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East must be doing abysmal if most from the US are going to London.
Saying that US-LHR flights are mostly O&D on the LHR end is absurd and entirely false.
Equipment changes can be uploaded just 2 weeks in advance. Final schedule adjustments do not necessarily reflect equipment changes. Predicting loads beyond February is too far in advance which is why you still see it as a 777.
Again, no one knows how long the 744 will operate in DEN. It's too early to determine and it all has to do with the loads.
Don't forget that in the past British Airways operated 744s for about 8 months of the year to DEN from LGW until they decided to move all 744s to LHR. Now that the DEN flight may possibly move to LHR (we'll find out soon), it means that the 744 can return. Also with the move to LHR will mean better connection opportunities. As a result loads and yields will increase dramatically which is another reason why they uploaded the 744 started in January of next year.
Again, no one knows how long it will continue as a 744. Equipment changes can be done as soon as 1-2 weeks before and can change at anytime.
When the flight returns back to a 777 is when we will know how long it operated as a 744. Not before.
Regards
That is correct. Even the Concorde has a large number of O&D passengers on the LHR end.
There were some figures released a while ago that showed how much O&D LHR has compared to the amount of traffic it gets and it's very little. Just 20% of LHR's entire traffic is O&D. The remaining 80% is all connecting traffic. That should automatically tell you that BA's LHR flights on the LHR end are mostly transiting passengers and JFK or MIA are no exceptions.
Don't forget Mark. LHR is a gateway.
London is not the world which means many want to go to places other than London. LHR is a gateway to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The possibilities are endless and saying that most of these passengers on the LHR end are simply O&D is absurd. That would mean British Airway's other flights to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East must be doing abysmal if most from the US are going to London.
Saying that US-LHR flights are mostly O&D on the LHR end is absurd and entirely false.
Equipment changes can be uploaded just 2 weeks in advance. Final schedule adjustments do not necessarily reflect equipment changes. Predicting loads beyond February is too far in advance which is why you still see it as a 777.
Again, no one knows how long the 744 will operate in DEN. It's too early to determine and it all has to do with the loads.
Don't forget that in the past British Airways operated 744s for about 8 months of the year to DEN from LGW until they decided to move all 744s to LHR. Now that the DEN flight may possibly move to LHR (we'll find out soon), it means that the 744 can return. Also with the move to LHR will mean better connection opportunities. As a result loads and yields will increase dramatically which is another reason why they uploaded the 744 started in January of next year.
Again, no one knows how long it will continue as a 744. Equipment changes can be done as soon as 1-2 weeks before and can change at anytime.
When the flight returns back to a 777 is when we will know how long it operated as a 744. Not before.
Regards
Denver's service to Europe is fairly new considering how long DEN has been a HUB. Since BA and Lufthansa are the only 2 flights to Europe we can assume a large percentage is conecting to other parts of Europe or beyond. The big east and west coast airports plus ORD are served by most of the major European airlines and have service by AA, UA, DAL or CAL to Europe. To say 80% of passengers on BA flights from JFK, LAX, SFO, IAD, BOS and MIA coonect at LHR is not on the same page. AMS, CDG and FRA are the biggest connecting airports in Europe. While LHR is a large airport, it has slot problems, old infrastrucure in many parts and the biggest destination in Europe of the major airlines from north america, australia, South Africa, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Middle East and Malaysia. BA connects many people but most fly to LHR because they are going to the UK. All those people who arrive at terminal 4 and transfer to terminal 1 for their European connection have mediocre experiences compared to KLM or Air France. CDG makes LHR look realy dumpy, but I like BA more then AF to fly on. Terminal 4 at LHR, as most should know, is far away from the central termial area at LHR and a completely different experience. Since most americans flying BA arrive at terminal 4 they really have no idea what the central terminal area ( terminals 1,2,3) look like.
- Status
Similar threads
