I was looking at various things for what the different airlines have for transcon service, and I had an interesting idea, although this idea may turn out to be impractical. American and United have pretty decent Transcontinental services, American with their "Flagship service", and United with their "Premium Service" Would it be possible, with US Airways having focus cities in these cities, start a transcontinental service from LaGuardia, if they gave up a certain amount of slots, and Washington National, to Orange County? I'm thinking they could use A32x aircraft, but maybe bumping up the quality of service on these routes, among other things, and starting these routes would give them a rather unique service. From what I understand, Orange County is less congested than LAX, or at least is easier to get to, and LaGuardia and Washington National are, at the very least, more convenient for some people.
US Airways Transcon-United PS style?
- Thread starter ~Luke
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
great idea, Luke but there are perimeter restrictions at LGA which limit the ability to operate transcon flights. Same exist at DCA but there are more exceptions... and US obviously wants more and more of those exceptions made for routes that US could benefit from.
Since it is a given that other carriers will fight for any exemptions to the perimter rules, US won't get all it wants... and even if there were exemptions, AA, DL, and UA which all operate internationally configured aircraft on transcon routes would quickly jump in to get their share of the market.
US currently has the most amount of "beyond perimeter slot exemptions" from DCA, at 8. Is it possible they shift these special slots they have to SNA, maybe one or two? As for the LGA perimeter exemptions, the farthest flights allowed are to DEN, so why not simply market it to Denver, with continuing service to Orange County? Or, make a compromise with the DOT, or whatever board controls the LGA slots, and give up their ridiculous, as of now, 19x PHL-LGA flights. I'm not sure of the loads on the current DCA-PHX/LAS service, but the removing of one or two of the slots could be compensated by using an A320/A321, or even a 757, if it was available, on these routes.
On another note, but similarly related, why the need for 19x PHL-LGA and 17x LGA-PHL flights daily? (I only counted today's flights) I can't imagine they do much more than bleed money and tie more slots up so other airlines can't get them.
Even if they are unable to get these slots, why not bump up the quality of these flights, such as PHL/CLT-LAX/SFO? I'm not sure how much you could make it better, given the recent quality increases for First Class, but I'm sure they could improve Economy. Maybe free meals on transcons? 🙂 On another side note, seeing a 767 or A330 in Phoenix wouldn't be too bad..
John Wayne - Orange County? Great if you live in the OC or you're visiting Disneyland. But SNA is a real haul down the 405 from Malibu, Beverly Hills, Brentwood and most of the entertainment industry worksites. The people who pay full fare up front on UA and AA premium transcons aren't clustered (home or work) near SNA. Congested as LAX may be, that's the airport of choice, simply because it's closer to the typical F and J transcon customers. There's a reason B6 has moved most of its transcons to LAX from LGB and SNA.
767jetz
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,286
- Reaction score
- 2,779
Premium service on UA is successful because we have the premium customers to fill the expensive seats. US does not. In fact UA (and AA) have contracts with large business customers for the type of service and aircraft configurations on those specific routes. UA has a specific fleet of PS aircraft (757's) configured with a large First Class with lie flat seats, and larger business class with lie flat seats, and a very small economy plus/ economy section in the rear. Because of the configuration those a/c can not be flown on other routes. I don't think that model is something US would be able to commit to.
PS/Flagship service depends on a high yielding O&D at both ends of the route. The ONLY potential existing US route is likely PHL-LAX. A few years ago (before the economic downturn) there was a rumor that UA was considering PHL-LAX and BOS-LAX PS service, but it never materialized. The consideration was supposedly based on interest from business contracts on both ends. My understanding (at least as late as 2008) is that the AA LAX-JFK Flagship service is significantly supported by entertainment industry contracts.
Art at ISP
Veteran
Zethya, you are correct with regard to AA. Both services feature first class seating due to a clause in the Screen Actors Guild contract requiring first class air travel, but that clause has been stricken from the latest contract.
I had heard that UA/CO is revamping PS service to offer a more Business/First type product occupying the front cabin, and possibly E+ and regular E (right now PS aircraft are F C and E+). This may also permit AA to use 763's which are two class on JFK-LAX looking forward.
That said, while a few years ago I might think that US would consider such a service, I'd give it almost no chance under the current administration. Despite recent moves to improve the product, I just don't think they would make an investment in a sub-fleet with specialized product for limited markets.
I had heard that UA/CO is revamping PS service to offer a more Business/First type product occupying the front cabin, and possibly E+ and regular E (right now PS aircraft are F C and E+). This may also permit AA to use 763's which are two class on JFK-LAX looking forward.
That said, while a few years ago I might think that US would consider such a service, I'd give it almost no chance under the current administration. Despite recent moves to improve the product, I just don't think they would make an investment in a sub-fleet with specialized product for limited markets.
Luke,
Love your enthusiam man .....but look who you are dealing with. This management wants to sell this POS. Nothing more ....nothing less!!
NICDOA
NPJB
Eh....doesn't hurt to hope though. *goes back to cheering for a certain airline that flies little blue, red, and orange planes* Haha...on a slightly different note, and the fact that I don't really want to start yet another thread..
Could US (or any of it's theoretical buyers) actually close the Phoenix hub without any repercussions? From what I see...Southwest alone has 193 daily departures, so multiplying that by 137 seats, gives them 26,441 seats, but I imagine that they couldn't pick up all the customers that US (AA, etc) would just leave.
(To be fair, I'm not a "cheerleader" for US, WN, or any other specific alrline. I like when I hear any alrline succeeding, because that means that jobs are kept on many different levels, which is a good thing for our economy.)
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Not really until joint contracts are reached for the US pilots and FA's. Even a buyer would have to comply with the current contracts for East and West until a joint contract was reached.
I haven't looked at the FA transition agree, but it's been said that it prohibits East and West FA's in the same base until there's a joint contract. That would prevent US or a buyer from closing PHX unless a new base was opened for West FA's.
Jim
SS255
Veteran
I live in LA, and I can tell you that a p.s.-style product would fail. There just is not enough entertainment business in the Philadelphia area (read: not geographically desirable to fly into one of the NY airports) to support a premium service. UA and AA have contracts with the studios which enable them to actually sell paid F and J seats because they are guaranteed exclusivity on LAX-JFK. To my knowledge, US does not have exclusive deals with any of the studios, and good luck breaking into that secret society. I'm sure that US gets decent business from the studios for the occasional film which shoots in the Philly area, but certainly not enough to justify the expense of operating a more enhanced product.
US would be far better off focusing on the new improvements in their transcon F service. Perhaps by building their brand back, the folks who pay the big bucks won't try so hard to avoid them. In fact, they might even be willing to fly US if they are paying for F. 😉
US would be far better off focusing on the new improvements in their transcon F service. Perhaps by building their brand back, the folks who pay the big bucks won't try so hard to avoid them. In fact, they might even be willing to fly US if they are paying for F. 😉
