Us Gets Screwed Yet Again

[ringmaruf]

The 12 DCA beyond-perimeter slots authorized by Vision 100 were allocated today by the DOT. US applied for 2 slots (1 roundtrip) in the DCA-SFO market and 2 slots in the DCA-SJU market.

The awards were: 4 slots for AS (2 for LAX and 2 for SEA), 4 slots for F9 for DEN, 2 slots for UA for DEN, 2 slots for HP for PHX.

This means that HP now holds 8 beyond-perimeter slots. AS and F9 have 6 each. DL and UA have 2 each. US has 0.

 

[mweiss]

I'm surprised there wasn't at least one DCA-SFO, but I can't imagine why such a slot would go to US instead of UA.

 

[USFlyer]

US should have gotten DCA-SJU. This sucks in my opinion.

 

[funguy2]

Sorry, but US Airways' application for beyond-perimeter slots is largely outside the scope of the legislation. The Legistlation provides for DCA service to hubs outside the perimeter, primarily to accomplish two goals:

1 No discrimination against a carrier simply based on location of its hub
2 Allow access to small communities which cannot support air service to hubs within the perimeter (think of Casper, WY, Medford, OR, Yuma, AZ as examples).

US Airways application does nothing to add service to its hub outside the perimeter nor allow greater access to smaller communities outside the perimeter.

 

[ringmaruf]

US has much more connectivity at SFO than AS does at LAX.

Also, the 3rd roundtrips for HP DCA-PHX and F9 DCA-DEN add very little to small-market service.

We wuz robbed.

 

[USFlyer]

US has much more connectivity at SFO than AS does at LAX.

Also, the 3rd roundtrips for HP DCA-PHX and F9 DCA-DEN add very little to small-market service.

We wuz robbed.

Agreed. Instead of another DCA-PHX, Aloha, at a minimum, should have been allowed to serve HNL one stop from DCA. UA should have been allowed to serve DCA-SFO in lieu of another DCA-SEA for AS. Etc. This isn't so much about US being robbed as it is about maximizing the value of the slots, which the DOT just blew in my opinion.

US also applied for some in-perimeter slots. What is the status of those?

 

[Phantom Fixer]

This can also be viewed as a vote of no confidence of U continuing as a going concern.

Maybe they have chosen to lesson the DCA markets exposure to U?

Maybe this is also a way to avoid re-shuffeling the deck if U fails?

What is for certain....this loss will be used as increased ammunition by management to continue hammering labor for more and more give-backs.

 

[ClueByFour]

US has much more connectivity at SFO than AS does at LAX.

AS codeshares with AA out of LAX, that's decent connectivity.

 

[USFlyer]

First, even if US liquidates, the DCA slots will be picked up within minutes, so the DOT should not be worrying about that. Second, the DOT just awarded US codeshare rights via LH to TLV, beating out many other "stronger" carriers. They clearly weren't too concerned there.

 

[ringmaruf]

US also applied for some in-perimeter slots. What is the status of those?

There were 10 within-perimeter slots available. 4 could go to any size airport. 2 could go to "medium-hubs" or smaller. 4 could go to "small-hubs" or smaller.

The any-size slots went 2 to Spirit for DCA-DTW and 2 to AirTran for DCA-ATL.

The medium-hub slots went 2 to Midwest for DCA-MCI.

The small-hub slots went 2 to DL/Comair for either DCA-LEX or DCA-JAN and 2 to US for either DCA-ILM or DCA-AVL or DCA-CHO.

US has been temporarily using those slots already for DCA-ILM, so that's probably the market they'll use.

Amazing how no Low Cost Carriers applied for the small airport slots. People want cheap fares, and service to places like ILM. Then they b!tch that US has too many slots, which it uses to serve places like ILM.

Sigh.

 

[USFlyer]

DCA-CHO?! Where on earth did that come from? Was this included as a possible routing in the DOT filing?

 

[ringmaruf]

AS codeshares with AA out of LAX, that's decent connectivity.

Yes, they have decent connectivity. But US has *better* connectivity at SFO. AS offers 17 online connecting markets at LAX. US offers 20 at SFO. Also, US would be using much larger aircraft (757-200 vs 737-700) and thus offering more connecting seats.

 

[diogenes]

ringmaruf,

When the public, who doesn't know it yet, and the pols, who do and won't admit it, recognize what you just said - you can't serve Smallville AND have WN fares - it will be too late.

The ease of connectivity will be gone, and a lot of taxpayer $$ that paid for second and third tier cites to participate in the global economy, will be pi$$ed down the drain.

Perhaps those taypayer funded facilities will then be transferred, if the local governments can fork over 'incentives', to private concerns, and the whole cycle will start again. :angry:

 

[Cosmo]

Yes, they have decent connectivity. But US has *better* connectivity at SFO. AS offers 17 online connecting markets at LAX. US offers 20 at SFO. Also, US would be using much larger aircraft (757-200 vs 737-700) and thus offering more connecting seats.

US Airways' DCA-SJU and DCA-SFO proposals each had one major drawback involving connections at the outlying point, a major requirement in the Congressional legislation that created these slot exemptions in the first place. The problem with the SJU proposal was that DOT concluded there was almost no US connectivity at SJU, and what little there was could be better served via US' within-perimeter hubs at CLT and PHL. Regarding the SFO proposal, the problem was that US' service plan relied upon United for connections beyond SFO, and since UA made a similar DCA-SFO proposal using B757s, DOT almost certainly would have chosen that carrier with its own online (as opposed to codesharing) connections if SFO had been selected as a city to receive new DCA service.

 

[ringmaruf]

Regarding the SFO proposal, the problem was that US' service plan relied upon United for connections beyond SFO

And AS relies on AA for connections over LAX.