Does Lh Fly To More U.s. Cities Than United

[Ukridge]

Flying back and forth from London to Frankfurt a few times this quarter with Lufthansa. I am sure that to those in the industry it is not even noticed, but for the passanger I must say that the flight/gate board in Frankfurt is quite a sight. It is a large board (there are actually more than 1 of them) in terminal 1 of size that appears to be approximately 4X12 meters. Every time I pass through I enjoy looking at this geography lesson. Heathrow has similar destinations of course but not the Frankfurt board that whirs and clicks as the flights are updated. Literally the entire world is posted on this display and it stirs the imagination.
While scanning for my flight I noticed just how many flights LH has to the FCs. I know I tend here toward hyperbole, but does LH cover more cities in the U.S. than United without its express carriers? I must say the list is impressive and that was only the flights that were leaving around 10 to 2. I am not sure of the current schedule outside this time. There must have been a handful going to the New York area alone. Since LH does not have a hub there and United does why does not United fly some of those flights? The onboard magazine also shows an impressive coverage of the U.S.
Cheers

 

[SVQLBA]

It all depends on network planning philosophy. You are noticing that LH serves not just the UA hubs (ORD, IAD, LAX, SFO) but also several other destinations that FRA, MUC, and even DUS pax want to get to.

UA has for many years had very hub-centric view of network development. There are very few (any?) domestic flights that do not go to-from their hubs (CO is similarly hub-centric but their new flights from Mexico City to secondary TX cities is interesting; AA is less hub-centric -- lots of flying from RDU, San Jose etc).

Internationally, UA has focused on serving capital cities and star alliance hubs. Across the atlantic, compare this to the CO and AA's network. On CO you can go direct to EDU, GLA, BHX, MAN, STN and LGW in the UK alone -- on UA you can get to ... LHR. (AA serves almost as many UK points from ORD I believe.) Similarly in Germany. I have it on good authority that when the former SVP Planning at UA, Montie Brewer (now at Air Canada) was asked about this, he responded that he thought most travellers liked the stop at a hub after a transatlantic flight even if they had to connect on!!!! I kid you not. Clearly, LH has decided that if its pax want to go direct to Portland, it will provide that, rather than funnel them through ORD or DEN.

One of the few things a carrier can get a premium for is direct service compared to connecting service. So why isn't there more hub-bypass (at one end or both ends) flying going on?

Network planning may appear a science, but in fact a lot of it is still art, and a whole lot of insight is needed to understand what's behind the figures and the results of the planning models. This lack of insight leads to fervent adherence to broken models (e.g., on pricing) which keeps UA and others stuck in the rut they are in. Throw in people's baises, personal history, and blinkers, and you start to understand why some carriers do not do what to others in blindingly obvious.

svqlba

 

[Ukridge]

Very informative post SVQLBA.

"I have it on good authority that when the former SVP Planning at UA, Montie Brewer (now at Air Canada) was asked about this, he responded that he thought most travellers liked the stop at a hub after a transatlantic flight even if they had to connect on!!!! " ---- It is here that I would have to express doubt if this gentleman ever stood at the disembarkment point and asked those of us in the passanger ranks if we "liked" to stop. Perhaps there are a few souls roaming the earth that would like to stop over and add travel time to a long day, but I would rather think that most would prefer to fly directly to destination thank you very much and your point concerning a premium for doing so is well taken.

"Clearly, LH has decided that if its pax want to go direct to Portland, it will provide that, rather than funnel them through ORD or DEN." --- Indeed. I nearly had to grasp for an atlas of the United States to determine the various and assundry destinations within those borders to which LH reaches directly. I was also surpised at the inablity (perhaps to strong a word?) of United to rustle up passangers from its major hubs to compete or augment LH. LH provides service to Los Angeles (sometimes 2 times a day in season according to the inflight magazine) yet United does not have a flight. Denver, which I was led to believe was a city that United had a presence in, is without its own flight to Frankfurt, yet LH readily serves this market. I guess my amazement is that United cannot seem to find passangers to fly from this major cites yet LH can. Perplexing.

"Network planning may appear a science, but in fact a lot of it is still art, and a whole lot of insight is needed to understand what's behind the figures and the results of the planning models." --- I can well imagine. Comso spoke to this on a pervious enquery of mine as to how airlines determine the pricing structures. Seems rather much as an alchemist.

I do not want to draw the wrong conclusion from your post but it seems that LH is definately in the driver's seat with the service to United's cities. Why stop at a hub if you do not have to. You well know that this is becoming the better option in Britain as bypassing Heathrow is a very good thing.
Cheers

 

[CAETravlr]

And on a completely unrelated topic, this is the reason that Boeing is producing the 7E7 as opposed to something even larger than the 747. I think that the airlines they surveyed are concentrating much more on point to point flying, even overseas. I think you are the very type of passenger that would appeal to.

 

[JFK777]

SVQLBA,

Your comparison of CAL vs. UAL flying to Europe is very accurate. UA did fly from IAD to Glasgow for a time in the mid 1990's, it was a disaster. Since other then JFK-LHR service, all UA east coast - Europe is from IAD, UA has to fly to bigger cities in Europe. LAX, SFO and ORD are great traffic generators to major European cities, I don't think UA would ever fly from ORD to Birmingham, UK even with a 767.

CAL with its HUGE EWR hub in NEW YORK, the biggest single market in the Americas, could turn a profit flying from EWR to RIGA, LATVIA (no offense to this fine city, I'm just using it as an example of a small Atlantic Market). So if CAL flies uncomfortable 757( these planes are too small for European service) to smaller cities like Birmingham and Edinburgh from New York, wouldn't this be the only & logical market to do it from? The first question of any atlantic route should be; does it work from the big apple?

While I welcome CAL to offer its great BUSINESSFIRST service to any city in Europe. I just feel for the poor souls who buy a CAL ticket on a quality airline( CAL is quality) thinking they are getting a great 777 or 767 but end up 2 seats from the ailse on a 757( a charter airplane to Europe).

 

[SVQLBA]

JFK

I agree that IAD is a weakish OD generator -- the better comparison with CO at EWR is AA and UA at ORD which has very strong European ties, yet for a long time was underserved across the Atlantic. (EWR is 70% OD traffic -- all the connecting feed at EWR is a bonus for CO.) FRA is a pretty good OD for LH, but it relies a lot on connecting feed too (I don't know exact OD % but it's not as high as CO at EWR). UK's basic point is still valid: LH's range of destinations to the US from FRA is far broader than UA's to Europe -- and a lot of that is planning philosophy, not just the hub at IAD.

On the 757 issue, I don't want to repeat the discussion from last month on the CO boards, but for me, a window seat in the 75 in coach is just as uncomfortable (or comfortable) as the window seat in the 74 or the 76, and much better than the center of 5 nightmare seat in the 77. I'd take a 75 and direct service any time. I know you don't think the 757 is a "proper" intercontinental aircraft, but I would be very surprised if I was the only person that didn't share your opinion. The DC-8, 707, and Concorde all did sterling service on intercontinental routes for years. Other than headroom in a widebody, seat size hasn't changed since the 707 days, and the pitch if anything has shrunk.

svqlba

 

[JFK777]

UAL decided to make LHR its promary European base of operations. Since the language is obviously the same more Americans go to London then any other city in Europe. 40% of all atlantic traffic from the USA goes to England(10% from NYC to London alone), 20 % goes to Germany, 10% to France. UA is only supporting its Star Alliance member Lufthansa in code sharing but will only fly its own planes to FRA from its hubs.

 

[Light Years]

Most passengers wouldnt blink an eye getting onto a 757 going to Europe. They couldnt care less if theres two aisles, or a big galley for a gaggle of F/As to congragate in. Give them a good fare, a drink, something to eat, and a movie and they are set.

As for seat comfort, it depends on the pitch, configuration etc, which is different on each airline and aircraft. The new US E170 has miles of legroom, two-two, all-leather seating with headrests, and actual space between you and your neighbour. I'd rather sit in a seat like that than in the center of a widebody any day.

 

[boeing787]

The new US E170 has...oh cut the crap. That jet is made to kill the major airline profession. That type of thinking has to be abolished. Substandard jet, sub sub standard wages. IF IT AIN"T BOEING I AIN"T GOING!

 

[Ukridge]

.... Since the language is obviously the same more Americans go to London then any other city in Europe. "

Sir:

I would put forth to you that yes, perhaps while there are at times similarities between the language spoken in the FC and that in England........
Cheers

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

Boeing787
I wouldn't be so one sided and say "IF IT AIN"T BOEING I AIN"T GOING!". It sounds like when Honda and Toyota first came to the US that only a US made car is a good car. Look where we are today, Honda, Toyota and Co. are not the bad guys any more.

There are other companies that make good aircrafts and Boeing has to get their act together if they want to make it. The B737 is at it end and killed the B757 and Boeing should have decided for the B757 instead than stretching the B737.

Light Years
I agree with your opinion. I would take any day a B757 over a B737 and if you have the same type of pitch and seats in a B757 as you have in a B747 or B777 tht aircraft is a fine one to fly to smaler destinations in Europe from the East Coast.

Ukridge
DLH has three hubs in Germany, FRA, MUC and BER. DLH fly's out of BER because it is the capital. The area does not support to have a hub there. Same with MUC. For the longest time you had to connect in FRA. Just imagine that you have all international flights of UA just out of ORD and look at it as Germany is just a state in the EU. All over a sudden UA has how many destinations? (LHR, FRA, AMS, CDG, MUC, ZHR and BRU).

CLETravlr
One of the reasons Boeing is not interested in a new B747 is because UA and NW are the last US airlines using this aircraft. If there is no US demand it is not interesting for Boeing to build an aircraft since it looks like if the airlines in it's own country aren't flying that aircraft, why should other airlines.

 

[avek00]

CLETravlr
One of the reasons Boeing is not interested in a new B747 is because UA and NW are the last US airlines using this aircraft. If there is no US demand it is not interesting for Boeing to build an aircraft since it looks like if the airlines in it's own country aren't flying that aircraft, why should other airlines.

I have to strongly disagree with this assertion, using the 777-300/300ER as an example. The 773 was primarily targeted towards non-US carriers, as has yet to be sold to a single US operator. Even the 773ER was launched entirely with foreign carriers as the lead customers. If enough airlines anywhere in the world commit to buying a plane, Boeing or Airbus will build it, nationalities be da*ned...

 

[JFK777]

BOEING didn't build a new 747 because UA or NW didn't want one? IF 9/11 hadn't hapened, all US airlines would be in better shape and buying new planes. ANY airline flying to LHR or NRT on the level UA & NW do will need a super sized plane. Slots are too few and far between at such airports, after flying multiple times a day say from ORD to LHR the only way to increase capacity is to buy a bigger plane. British Airways is facing a simialr dilema; In 2 years when Virgin, SIA, QF, Cathay & Emirates start flying to LHR with those fancy A380's BA is going to have to do something big.

Rod Eddington recently said," BA's fleet of 744 and 777 was young". BA, usually a leader in such things, is sounding like Delta, reactionary instead of proactive. BA at a minimum going to have to buy some 777-300ER, something larger though would be better. AA may have a similar situation to BA's. BA should order some A380, if they don't buy them they could sell the delivery slot for lots of money.

 

[DCAview]

I'd also imagine that United is fairly nonplussed about Lufthansa taking, say, the DEN-FRA route since, under the joint agreement between the two airlines, United and Lufthansa share costs and profits on their North Atlantic service.*

Given that, it may well make more sense for the operator with lower costs, more available aircraft, easier scheduling to operate a particular trans-Atlantic flight. In some cases, that will be Lufthansa. In others, it will be United. Both airlines benefit under such an arrangement.

* Of course, this is my recollection of the agreement. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or forgotten some relevant aspect.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I'd also imagine that United is fairly nonplussed about Lufthansa taking, say, the DEN-FRA route since, under the joint agreement between the two airlines, United and Lufthansa share costs and profits on their North Atlantic service.*

Given that, it may well make more sense for the operator with lower costs, more available aircraft, easier scheduling to operate a particular trans-Atlantic flight. In some cases, that will be Lufthansa. In others, it will be United. Both airlines benefit under such an arrangement.

* Of course, this is my recollection of the agreement. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or forgotten some relevant aspect.

STAR has a very differnt structure than any other alliance. In addition UA and LH are the beginning of STAR. They agreed to cost and profit sharing on routs and they are making money. STAR is currently (to my information) allaince where you as a passenger can upgrade on any flight regardless from which partner you purchased the ticket and which airline you are flying by using you miles.

LH is subsedising UA to keep UA allive. They are actually collecting much less than they are entiteled to from UA just to keep the UA network in the US avaliable for LH and all the other STAR members. If UA will fold STAR will have at this moment no foot in the important US market and that at the end would cost them more money.

Again LH and SQ would love to get a majority in UA to keep it allive and kicking (One World and Sky Team more than hate STAR)!