What's new

US Airways to File for Delay of PHL-Beijing

Too bad....but I thought international flights were what everyone wanted with high fuel prices. Could it have something to do with not having the aircraft for the job yet???
 
US Airways to File for Delay of PHL-Beijing

May 22, 2008

Dear US Airways Employee,

In our continuing effort to cope with the serious impact of skyrocketing oil prices, we are today asking the U.S. Department of Transportation for a one-year extension to launch our planned Philadelphia-Beijing service. That is, we’re asking for permission to start that service in spring of 2010, rather than spring of 2009.

The extension request is a response to record-high fuel prices and fuel’s impact on the economic feasibility of this route. We’re not alone in our concern: DOT approved a similar request from United just last week, and Northwest also has asked for permission to suspend some existing cargo service to China. Both cited sky-high fuel prices in their petitions.

In our case, at today’s prices, the fuel cost alone of running this single flight would be more than $90 million a year, about $40 million higher than the estimates we made when we filed for the route.

When we received approval for the route last year, oil sold for about $60 per barrel. Today, as you know, oil prices are topping $130 a barrel. Jet fuel prices have leapt from about $2.15 a gallon when we applied for the route, to more than $4.00 per gallon just today. This extra fuel cost will make this flight uneconomic in 2009, especially if the economy and travel demand softens.

I want to assure you, however, that we remain committed to international growth from Philadelphia. We’ve already done a lot of preparatory work for the China route – meeting with high-level Chinese government officials for facilities and licenses, creating codeshares for inter-China service with Air China, and marketing planning.

We will also continue our plans to grow other international routes. We’ll begin taking delivery of new long-haul A330-200 class airplanes from Airbus to grow to new international destinations through 2011.

We’ve communicated these intentions to the PHL Division of Aviation and Mayor Nutter, who are very supportive of our plans to build the world-class international gateway that the city and our customers deserve.

We’re optimistic that economic conditions will be on the upswing in 2010, giving us a better chance of success with our first route to China. We will keep you posted on the DOT proceedings.

In the meantime, keep up the great work and customer service that we are seeing across our airline.

Sincerely,
Scott Kirby
President
 
Strip the route.....it appears they always planned this flight as a loss leader, and now can't stomach how much loss that will mean....if they can't make money flying to Asia, give it to someone who can.
 
There are prorably just no Wal-Mart priced A340-300's avaible. I think US should lose the authroity over this circus.
 
Let me be the first to say...I told ya so! Every time I ever hear anyone on a trip or in recurrent saying, "OOH...but we're flyin' to C H I N A next year", my response has consistently been, "I'll believe it when I see the plane for it". I've thought all along that US never had serious plans to fly this route. With fuel as high as it is now, it just provides a better excuse not to. I'll fall off my jumpseat and kiss the girt bar if I ever see a US plane touch down in China.
 
I knew they were not serious about China flying when they decided to use Airbus. Confirmation of this from Doug himself when he blamed Boeing for not being able to replace the Airbus' with the 787. Key being those that fly the long haul Airbus want to get rid of it.
 
A wise (and expected) decision IMO, even if US had 2+ 340s already inhouse. If the delay is approved (UA has already set precedence), it should provide enough time to locate appropriate aircraft. Remember, this flight was always planned to loose $ for the first 3 years of operation and was instituted to provide an initial "trial" entry into Asia. Further, like other China routes, this proposal likely counted heavily on China-US cargo for at least marginal performance - a significant fuel drainer. A potential, but IMO unlikely result (because of the economy/fuel costs), would be for the DOT to deny the request and award PEK to another carrier's new (to be submitted) proposal to start service next March/April. One thing's for certain, it should appear a lot more credible to delay this polar route than attempting to fly it with a 332!

On the positive side, I'd bet this delay likely ensures that PHL-TLV will start next spring with the 2 Swiss aircraft.
 
This route was suppose to lose money for 3 years at $70 bucks a barrel whatta ya think at $140.

Yeah, and it's not like there aren't other choices for those in the Philly area. UA flies to Beijing from IAD, ORD, and SFO. With the economy as it is and is likely to be for a while, and with IAD relatively close and UA using the 747-400 on the route, it makes sense of US to hold off.

On another note, does/would US actually have an aircraft in time that could fly the route? No way in an A330!

Cheers,
Z B)
 
Did anyone really think we would be flying this route?
 
Hell No. If someone did they are DELUSIONAL!

The Tradition continues...

Didn't want Japan in the 80's

In the 90's, couldn't con the pilots into wet leasing the Japan route 'till we got widebodies

In the 00's, bailed out on China after a truly halfhearted effort
 
Back
Top