US Airways drops planned Philly-Beijing route

Ah...but PI got the airplanes to fly the LGW route. Where are the planes to fly either PEK or NRT? Besides, I didn't say I agreed with the "one flight isn't worth it" but only mentioned that the same could be said about NRT. Do you disagree that either PEK or NRT would be a lone flight to Asia for US?

Jim

Fair enough. But only Tempe's lack of foresight and inability to follow through has kept LCC from having the appropriate aircraft to fly the route. You can find it faster than I can, so tell us if there was a proposed airframe in the application for Peking, and what that proposed airframe was.

Do you disagree that service to both PEK and NRT would make your argument that each is a "lone flight to Asia for US" false?

Was CLT-LGW in 1987 a "lone flight to Europe for PI"? How did that turn out?
 
You can find it faster than I can, so tell us if there was a proposed airframe in the application for Peking, and what that proposed airframe was.

A340

Do you disagree that service to both PEK and NRT would make your argument that each is a "lone flight to Asia for US" false?

If US were propoosing to operate flights to both PEK and NRT your question would make sense, but unless something has changed today that isn't the case.

Jim
 
Not to be a smart ankle, but TLV is Asia. I know we always refer to it as being in the Middle East, but that was a British term in reference to their empire. TLV and Arabia are in (south)west Asia. Having spent extensive time there, it one of those things Americans are ridiculed by the local inhabitants as being ignorant thereof. Interesting infobits: Egypt is acutally in both Asia and Africa. More commonly known, Turkey and Russia are in both Europe and Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

no it's in the middle east , do you know why ? because we say so , that's why .....

i love being an american
 
If US were propoosing to operate flights to both PEK and NRT your question would make sense, but unless something has changed today that isn't the case.

Jim

Well, until the announcement this week, PEK and NRT were both still in the game plan. So, they dropped PEK, and now NRT makes no sense because is a the "lone route to Asia for US"? Therefore, it's essential to drop NRT.

Sounds like a unique combination of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Can someone clear up something I am confused about...I saw that US is dropping PHL-LGW per their press release. I thought they flew PHL-LHR & CLT-LGW...am I missing something?
 
Does NRT require the route authority process that China does?

As it applies to US' proposed LGA/DCA slot swap with the NRT and GRU frequencies thrown in, a very good question.

For airlines already possessing route authority to Japan, there are unused frequencies in the pool that can be requested; for instance, AA turned in its SJC-NRT frequencies three years ago and as far as I know, no airline has requested those seven frequencies.

Does US already have authority to serve Japan? If so, then starting the PHX-NRT service should be an abbreviated process assuming that DoT approves the transfer from DL.
 
Can someone clear up something I am confused about...I saw that US is dropping PHL-LGW per their press release. I thought they flew PHL-LHR & CLT-LGW...am I missing something?

PHL-LGW is already gone, but the service goes to LHR instead. We still do CLT-LGW, but (if it wasn't addressed in the announcement already) I doubt we will continue that for very long. That service will also go to LHR at the earliest opportunity, IMHO.
 
Well, until the announcement this week, PEK and NRT were both still in the game plan.

Tentatively in the game plan. NRT isn't definite until the DOT approves the deal.

So, they dropped PEK, and now NRT makes no sense because is a the "lone route to Asia for US"? Therefore, it's essential to drop NRT.

Sounds like a unique combination of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you're going to address all this to me, at least show me where I said that a "lone route to Asia" made no sense. Unless you can do that, you're pointing fingers at the wrong person. Personally I think that PEK makes sense - Asia is one of the world regions that is showing signs of improvement both economically and traffic wise first. (Latin America and the Middle East are the others) I'm assuming that US has no plans to acquire the equipment to fly PHL-PEK with comfortable range margins any time soon, so they are returning the authority. IMHO that's also why Parker talked about PHX-NRT instead of PHL-NRT if the deal with DL is approved.

BTW, the FAQs about the "realignment" said that CLT-LGW would continue being flown but I'm sure their lips were moving when they said that so who knows.

Jim
 
I was the wizard that said sole route to Asia. And then someone said TLV, and someone else said........

You get the idea because apparently I don't.
 
A quick look online revealed 2 A340-300's with 3 class/264 seats.
available for lease this year. So if US really wanted to go to China, the equipment was certainly available, not to mention the 4 Air Canada -343s which were available last year.

Doubtful that the A332 woud have the nonstop legs PHX-PEK or NRT with any sort of useful payload.

IIRC US went thru the same thing in the 90's with NRT. no aircraft on property or on order to fly a route we applied for..
 
IIRC US went thru the same thing in the 90's with NRT. no aircraft on property or on order to fly a route we applied for..

I think they did have leases line up on 747s or something. Funny thing is that the seat assignment system in use back then could only handle 32 rows, Remember when US first got 757s in the early 90's, rows 33 and 34 were issued handwritten BPs? That wold have been fun on a 747!
 
US had no plane lined up for the PIT-NRT route, they asked the pilots for a dry lease and they refused to have another airline, its plane and crews fly our route.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top