Us Regulatory And Route News
- Thread starter ITRADE
- Start date
I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could find some 767s or 330s out there somewhere at a great rate to add to the European flying, but this would require keeping people on property. Not sure if that is what they are interested in. Too bad they are missing out on some opportunities to make some money to Europe right now. Maybe they need to take the slow winter season to make a decision to get some more lift so next years "seasonal" service can stay in some form or another (round robin flights or several times a week). Also nice to see some "winter lift" heading to the Caribbean and Mexico this year.
We reduced our international flying for the winter by 5 flights if I am not mistaking. We could use 1 767 to fly PHL-SNN-DUB-PHL as Itrade suggested. My question would be, is the demand be there in the winter, and would we have the cargo sales to support the flights?700UW said:
MarkMyWords
i think we reduced 4 european flights for the winter
PHL-DUB
PHL-SNN
PHL-CDG
PHL-LGW
the 762's are maxed out for the winter. They are flying a mixture of the following routes:
PHL-MCO
CLT-MCO
CLT-SJU
PHL-SJU
CLT-CUN
PHL-CUN
PHL-NAS
there's really not a few spare 762's that we'd be able to rotate to SNN and DUB. Maybe if we aquired 4 or 5 more widebodies though.
i think we reduced 4 european flights for the winter
PHL-DUB
PHL-SNN
PHL-CDG
PHL-LGW
the 762's are maxed out for the winter. They are flying a mixture of the following routes:
PHL-MCO
CLT-MCO
CLT-SJU
PHL-SJU
CLT-CUN
PHL-CUN
PHL-NAS
there's really not a few spare 762's that we'd be able to rotate to SNN and DUB. Maybe if we aquired 4 or 5 more widebodies though.
CJ -
You forgot about PIT-LGW.
Also, were you aware that we are currently operating with 4, yes 4, 757 spare airplanes right now? In the original schedule plans some flying was moved from the 757 to the 767 to accomodate the paint track and the first class modifications. The mod was haulted due the Airbus dispute and the need for aircraft to get us through the holiday. The paint track was haulted due to issues with the contractor (issues is putting it nicely....there is a long story about that on another thread) and also to take up the slack of the parked Airbuses. Therefore we do have the airplanes available.
You forgot about PIT-LGW.
Also, were you aware that we are currently operating with 4, yes 4, 757 spare airplanes right now? In the original schedule plans some flying was moved from the 757 to the 767 to accomodate the paint track and the first class modifications. The mod was haulted due the Airbus dispute and the need for aircraft to get us through the holiday. The paint track was haulted due to issues with the contractor (issues is putting it nicely....there is a long story about that on another thread) and also to take up the slack of the parked Airbuses. Therefore we do have the airplanes available.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #21
I would think that there would be enough service to operate 2x or 3x weekly service to places like Acapulco and Puerto Vallarta and possibly Mazatlan. I don't think that there'd really be enough draw for Ixtapa, Manzanillo, or Cabo San Lucas.MarkMyWords said:
I made my reference to Acapulco and Mazatlan and/or Puerto Vallarta as there is NO service to these spots from East of the mississippi. While CLT kind chops down the extent from which "East of the mississippi" traffic can be drawn, the alliance with United certainly would add more passengers than US would be able to garner if it were going it alone.
Plus, consider the following fact. It was voted on a week or two ago that Mexicana will no longer be a Star alliance carrier. Given that there will be very little Star alliance coverage to Mexico, US's undertaking of these routes might not be limited to simply US east coast based passengers, but could be expanded to European/Canadian traffic.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
PITbull said:
Well, if you're dying to know - next week.
That would be two questions. I'm only entertaining one question per post.
So maybe we could do Acapulco, Puerto Vallarta and possibly Mazatlan with weekend service and suppliment it with 2-3x weekday service. Sounds good to me. I wasn't sure if there would be a lot of draw from the east but if we had a corner on that market, whose to say it wouldn't blossom, especially with Star support.
Your comments about expanding the draw from Canada and Europe leads back to my earlier question about there being a market for late evening flights out of PHL or CLT to the Caribbean and Mexico. If I were a Customer living in Europe and wanted to get to CUN for a vacation, I would have a 16 hour layover in PHL to do that on US. Would there be enough demand to put additional flights on the route late in the evening to accomodate European Customers? What I have seen (schedule wise) is that everyone tends to schedule flights early in the day to allow for turns in/out of the islands. AA is one of the few airlines that has late day departures out of MIA, SJU or DFW to some Caribbean destinations.
Your comments about expanding the draw from Canada and Europe leads back to my earlier question about there being a market for late evening flights out of PHL or CLT to the Caribbean and Mexico. If I were a Customer living in Europe and wanted to get to CUN for a vacation, I would have a 16 hour layover in PHL to do that on US. Would there be enough demand to put additional flights on the route late in the evening to accomodate European Customers? What I have seen (schedule wise) is that everyone tends to schedule flights early in the day to allow for turns in/out of the islands. AA is one of the few airlines that has late day departures out of MIA, SJU or DFW to some Caribbean destinations.
PITbull
Veteran
ITRADE,
Second question: You've been very busy working for U (which you told me you do not in previous posts).
Is you first name Bruce, and would you be honest? Since you claim to know the PIT Pres. of AFA, she asked me to ask you. She said you would know.....
Of course, you have the right to avoid the question, and then we can just guess.
Second question: You've been very busy working for U (which you told me you do not in previous posts).
Is you first name Bruce, and would you be honest? Since you claim to know the PIT Pres. of AFA, she asked me to ask you. She said you would know.....
Of course, you have the right to avoid the question, and then we can just guess.
ringmaruf
Veteran
I think a lot of the reason that not as many people fly PHL-PVR or PHL-ACA, for example, is the whole chicken-and-the-egg thing. People don't fly there because that's not where the planes go. Granted, CUN, for example is a huge market. But I'll bet if you looked at CZM, the number of pax that flew PHL-CZM and CLT-CZM was a lot smaller before US started the route. I believe you'll see a similar thing with MEX. Or SNN. If US started PHL-PVR, people would consider PVR as a vacation destination.
I'm not sure that adding more destinations is the answer right now. I think that, while PVR or ACA or POS or PTY or GUA might be nice, increasing the frequency to the destinations US already serves is the answer. A late departure PHL-Caribbean and a morning Caribbean-PHL for European connections really sounds like it would work in many markets. And I think adding gateways other than PHL and CLT is worth a try. It's really a shame that we don't know how all the new BDA service would have worked were it not for the hurricanes. And it'll be interesting to see how all the BOS service does.
And to the poster who said that all of US's 767's are scheduled. Well, yes...but if US really wanted to fly to DUB/SNN in the winter, I think they could manage to fly MCO or NAS with 2x 737 instead of a 767.
The 757's could probably be made ETOPS and fly thinner routes like PHL-DUB/SNN/GLA year-round or start PHL-BCN/LIS. (I don't know whether US's ancient 757's could handle BOS-FRA.) But honestly, I think it'd be cheaper just to lease a few more 767's than to worry about upgrading the 757's. And the narrowbodies couldn't fly to Europe in a reasonable configuration, not even something like BOS-DUB.
I'm not sure that adding more destinations is the answer right now. I think that, while PVR or ACA or POS or PTY or GUA might be nice, increasing the frequency to the destinations US already serves is the answer. A late departure PHL-Caribbean and a morning Caribbean-PHL for European connections really sounds like it would work in many markets. And I think adding gateways other than PHL and CLT is worth a try. It's really a shame that we don't know how all the new BDA service would have worked were it not for the hurricanes. And it'll be interesting to see how all the BOS service does.
And to the poster who said that all of US's 767's are scheduled. Well, yes...but if US really wanted to fly to DUB/SNN in the winter, I think they could manage to fly MCO or NAS with 2x 737 instead of a 767.
The 757's could probably be made ETOPS and fly thinner routes like PHL-DUB/SNN/GLA year-round or start PHL-BCN/LIS. (I don't know whether US's ancient 757's could handle BOS-FRA.) But honestly, I think it'd be cheaper just to lease a few more 767's than to worry about upgrading the 757's. And the narrowbodies couldn't fly to Europe in a reasonable configuration, not even something like BOS-DUB.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #26
No, DELETED, my name is not Bruce. My wife has not called me Bruce, either. But, it can be if you really, really want.PITbull said:
PITbull
Veteran
ITRADE,
The way you wrote the "topic" starter, could lead one to believe you had some inside knowledge here at U and responsibility specifically with "alliances" code shares being that this news was not publically announced yet. One could easily deduce this from your post. Bruce A. was also out of town these past couple weeks.
Too bad your not Bruce. He is the only VP that is worth his weight in gold for USAirways, Inc. I have huge respect for him. He makes positive things happen, and is part of the old administration. Most of the positive things achieved by Restructuring USAirways, I believe are mostly his accomplishments and he does his own leg work as an negotiator.
Personally, I didn't think he was you. Your too antagonisitic on these boards and petty. Glad you quickly cleared that up for us. Perhaps, you should have just let us guess.
The way you wrote the "topic" starter, could lead one to believe you had some inside knowledge here at U and responsibility specifically with "alliances" code shares being that this news was not publically announced yet. One could easily deduce this from your post. Bruce A. was also out of town these past couple weeks.
Too bad your not Bruce. He is the only VP that is worth his weight in gold for USAirways, Inc. I have huge respect for him. He makes positive things happen, and is part of the old administration. Most of the positive things achieved by Restructuring USAirways, I believe are mostly his accomplishments and he does his own leg work as an negotiator.
Personally, I didn't think he was you. Your too antagonisitic on these boards and petty. Glad you quickly cleared that up for us. Perhaps, you should have just let us guess.
Itrade:
Your "couple of thoughts" are intriguing, so I did some research within the company in the marketing area.
US Airways has already looked at all of your points. The problem with some of the Mexican markets is that the local O&D traffic would likely be to small to be profitable and Continental has a huge advantage out of Houston and Newark.
US Airways believes the company has 8 good candidates for B757 transatlantic service, but the company prefers to use the B767-200s first. Interestingly, I understand part of the "Transformation Plan" could be to get (cheap/used) B767-200s instead of using the B757 sub-fleet, but the airline must fix core business first.
In regard to the B767-200s, Bloomberg recently reported that United is going to phase out its B767-200 fleet in 2005 and there are reports that RSA holds some United B767 EETCs, presumably part of the 174 that the Chicago-based airline told the bankruptcy court it was having difficulty renegotiating.
In fact, in a prepared statement United bankruptcy attorney Jim Sprayregen told the court, "We remain in a constructive, but exceedingly complex negotiation with our public aircraft debt. That group represents 174 aircraft in both our four enhanced equipment trust certificate transactions as well as a significant number of other public and older private transactions. The number of financial institutions with significant stakes in the debt represented by that group exceeds 100. There are issues regarding cross holdings of institutions among various transactions, between senior and subordinate tranches in public deals, different mixes of wide-bodied and narrow-bodied aircraft, as well as recent and older vintage aircraft among all these transactions."
Itrade, even though I do not understand why the company would want more B767-200s instead of A330-200s, apparently the company is interested in acquiring more Boeing widebody's and I believe they could come from United.
Regards,
Chip
Your "couple of thoughts" are intriguing, so I did some research within the company in the marketing area.
US Airways has already looked at all of your points. The problem with some of the Mexican markets is that the local O&D traffic would likely be to small to be profitable and Continental has a huge advantage out of Houston and Newark.
US Airways believes the company has 8 good candidates for B757 transatlantic service, but the company prefers to use the B767-200s first. Interestingly, I understand part of the "Transformation Plan" could be to get (cheap/used) B767-200s instead of using the B757 sub-fleet, but the airline must fix core business first.
In regard to the B767-200s, Bloomberg recently reported that United is going to phase out its B767-200 fleet in 2005 and there are reports that RSA holds some United B767 EETCs, presumably part of the 174 that the Chicago-based airline told the bankruptcy court it was having difficulty renegotiating.
In fact, in a prepared statement United bankruptcy attorney Jim Sprayregen told the court, "We remain in a constructive, but exceedingly complex negotiation with our public aircraft debt. That group represents 174 aircraft in both our four enhanced equipment trust certificate transactions as well as a significant number of other public and older private transactions. The number of financial institutions with significant stakes in the debt represented by that group exceeds 100. There are issues regarding cross holdings of institutions among various transactions, between senior and subordinate tranches in public deals, different mixes of wide-bodied and narrow-bodied aircraft, as well as recent and older vintage aircraft among all these transactions."
Itrade, even though I do not understand why the company would want more B767-200s instead of A330-200s, apparently the company is interested in acquiring more Boeing widebody's and I believe they could come from United.
Regards,
Chip
Similar threads
