US asks to delay its new PHL-PEK

[Skymess]

Mark, downgrading BOS-LHR would be mixing a two class and three class product at LHR, and I don't know that AA wants to do that. It creates some serious operational headaches, not to mention confusing the crap out of customers. The 777 is a far better product in Y because of the seatback video.

I worked ORD-LHR a few times in December on the 767. We have and can do it.

 

[FWAAA]

Unlike previous awards, the DOT's award didn't assign backup authority for any of the awards, including UA's and US's. Instead, they said they'd start with a clean record...

So, US's now-delayed frequencies aren't even up for grabs if AMR wanted them....

The US aren't valid until March 2009, which is when AA starts ORD-PEK. UA's award was pretty specific to Guangzhou.

Agreed, but wouldn't the DOT entertain a petition to revisit the 2009 frequency awards (reopen the proceedings) once US formally applies to delay their launch? Or would they let those frequencies sit dormant for a year?

NW recently announced that next March 1, it will cancel NRT-CAN and use those frequencies to fly SEA-PEK nonstop. CO hasn't made any noises about delaying its new EWR-PVG flight. CAN appears to be the issue with UA and NW - if the other airlines ask about delaying their new PVG or PEK flights, then maybe dormancy would be permitted.

Since ORD-PVG and ORD-PEK are probably the two strongest options given AA's network and contracts, I don't see where adding a third route would do anything except dilute traffic on the other two segments. LAX would have a strong O&D to either PVG or PEK, but there's also a lot of competition in the market if you consider connects via SFO.

Yikes! Dilution? Are you hinting that USA-China traffic isn't as underserved as we thought it was or that USA-China traffic isn't growing fast enough to absorb all these new flights? Could be, but IMO, AA's 3-class 777 provides superior cabins compared to DL, CO NW or UA. Best F (compared to UA) and better J with the new Biz seats than the others.

LAX has strong O&D, UA made a convincing case for LAX in its request for 2009 frequencies (denied by the DOT) and AA still has decent connectivity to LAX from all over the country (MIA, NYC, BOS, DFW, IAD, and many other smaller points). I vote for LAX, but Bears will still argue for JFK.

Mark, downgrading BOS-LHR would be mixing a two class and three class product at LHR, and I don't know that AA wants to do that. It creates some serious operational headaches, not to mention confusing the crap out of customers. The 777 is a far better product in Y because of the seatback video.

What about FRA and CDG, both of which see 777s part (or all) of the year? Enough F demand to those cities? Maybe they could give up the 777s in favor of 763s.

 

[MAH4546]

Unlike previous awards, the DOT's award didn't assign backup authority for any of the awards, including UA's and US's. Instead, they said they'd start with a clean record...

So, US's now-delayed frequencies aren't even up for grabs if AMR wanted them....

Yes, they are up for grabs. The fact that they didn't give back-ups doesn't mean squat.

Since ORD-PVG and ORD-PEK are probably the two strongest options given AA's network and contracts, I don't see where adding a third route would do anything except dilute traffic on the other two segments. LAX would have a strong O&D to either PVG or PEK, but there's also a lot of competition in the market if you consider connects via SFO.

LAX-PVG would not dilute anything. You have the largest USA-China market that is served with only three daily flights. There are more daily seats between LAX and Guangzhou than between LAX and Shanghai. The local market is huge, high-yielding, and in desperate need to a second daily.

Mark, downgrading BOS-LHR would be mixing a two class and three class product at LHR, and I don't know that AA wants to do that. It creates some serious operational headaches, not to mention confusing the crap out of customers. The 777 is a far better product in Y because of the seatback video.

It sucks, but it's going to happen eventually. AA tested out sending 763s on BOS/ORD-LHR last winter for the exact reasons you mentioned. With a stronger business class product, AA now feels they can send 763s to Heathrow, and AA is currently using 763s on DFW-LHR. 763s to Heathrow are a question of when, not if. If AA mixed 763s and 772 to Heathrow, they could gain the equivalent of THREE 772s to send on new routes. The 772 utilization rates could go from the current 12 or so hours to as many as 16. The days were AA had the luxury of under-utilizing their 772 fleet to send a consistent product are dead. Those 772s have way too much ground time.

Besides, BOS-LHR doesn't fill up with much in the way of paying F. Only MIA/JFK/LAX see significant paid F revenue.

 

[eolesen]

The new C seat is a piece of crap, Mark. On my flight home from CDG last week, the seat in the row in front of me got stuck in the almost-flat position. Putting in the normal 12V plug and not making the change to a standard 120V plug like everyone else was a huge mistake, and so was the standalone IVOD player.

CDG has been pretty much all 767 for a while, which is why I try to fly over LHR as much as possible when heading to our France offices...


And, as for your claim the slots are open, you might want to go check the docket on Regulations.gov --- they approved UA's deferral, yet there's no mention whatsoever that they've reopened the docket to give the slots away.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

NHBB's - I'm starting to wonder about you. You should know that just putting a deadheading Capt on the flight (or possibly an entire 2nd crew) doesn't satisfy the duty requirements. The required relief pilot(s) would have to take their turn at the controls. Just physically being on the airplane doesn't count.

Jim

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Captain,

A sincere thanx for the clarification !!! MY Bad.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

( ding....ding...ding...ding )

"Ladies.....aannnnnddd....Gentlemen"

"Tonite,...A scheduled 15 round Heavyweight Fight.....to decide the Outcome of the China slot, formerly granted to US Airways"

"The contestants"

"In this corner,...........from the Great state of Florida,.......weighing 175 pounds.....and wearing White Trunks...........MAH4546..."


"And in the other Corner......from..Nowheresville Texas......Weighing 170 pounds.......and wearing NO Trunks ..........E-olesen"


"Gentlemen lets have a clean fight,...No head butting,.....and NO hitting Below the Belt ..."

 

[eolesen]

170 lbs? You just took me back at least 20 years, Bears... 😉

Here's the docket, guys. Read for yourselves...

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/comp...-OST-2007-28567

I'll draw your attention to UA's filing from 4/11 (posted the 15th)...

United now forecast that demand for travel to Guangzhou this summer is likely to be lower than previously forecast principally due to the subprime debt crisis in the U.S. and its impact on the domestic economy. Faced with a signigicant (and unexpected) increase in operating costs, and a forecast decline in demand for travel over the route, United now expects to incur a far more substantial operating loss (and for a much longer period of time) ... from instituting this developmental route than it expected when it proposed to start daily nonstop service in June of this year.

I'm sure AA will do better than UA, considering UA is the far more established brand in China...

 

[MAH4546]

The new C seat is a piece of crap, Mark. On my flight home from CDG last week, the seat in the row in front of me got stuck in the almost-flat position. Putting in the normal 12V plug and not making the change to a standard 120V plug like everyone else was a huge mistake, and so was the standalone IVOD player.

I agree. I've only tried it on the 772, but it sucks. It is still a better than what they used to have.

And, as for your claim the slots are open, you might want to go check the docket on Regulations.gov --- they approved UA's deferral, yet there's no mention whatsoever that they've reopened the docket to give the slots away.

You might want to actually read the approval of UA's deferral before making such claims:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...=Do...-OST-2007-28567

We will grant United's request to further amend its startup deadline for San Francisco - Guangzhou combination air transportation. We will require the carrier to institute service no later than June 30, 2009. We note that no party opposed United's request.

In taking this action, however, we put United on notice that should other U.S. carriers currently authorized to serve the U.S.-China market file applications for San Francisco-Guangzhou authority, we reserve the right to reconsider our decision here whether or not that decision continues to be in the public interest

 

[eolesen]

I saw that, but it's a far cry from saying other carriers are free to apply for the authority, or turning down the request outright, which would have started the process of soliciting new applications immediately.

 

[777 fixer]

The new C seat is a piece of crap, Mark. On my flight home from CDG last week, the seat in the row in front of me got stuck in the almost-flat position. Putting in the normal 12V plug and not making the change to a standard 120V plug like everyone else was a huge mistake, and so was the standalone IVOD player.

Are you refering to the new biz class seats on AA's 767 or something else?

 

[MAH4546]

I saw that, but it's a far cry from saying other carriers are free to apply for the authority, or turning down the request outright, which would have started the process of soliciting new applications immediately.

It's not a far cry at all.

UA applied to delay the authority, and nobody opposed. Though within the reply period, any airline could have protested and applied to take the route authority. In this situation, the route must be one between the U.S. and Guangzhou, which nobody wanted.

In US Airways' case, US Airways will apply to delay start for a year. There will be a reply period in which any airline can protest and apply to take the route authority (or rather, protest and ask for the selection process to re-start). In this situation, the route can be between any U.S. city and either Shanghai or Beijing. Other airlines will likely want it, and it is basically does bring the application process back to ground zero and DOT will open up a new docket for it.

The important thing of note is that US Airways was chosen as a "new entrant," so it DOT will consider if public interest in having the route on a new entrant outweighs public interest in having a current airline fly the route a year earlier.

Of course, at $130+ oil and rising, who knows if anybody will apply. I think at least Delta will.

 

[NAPAUS]

Bitter.....party of one....you have a telephone call...please use the red courtesy phone located at the airport entrance........


I'd say your coffin will be nailed first. You can tell us how bankruptcy is........once again.

🙄 🙄 :blink: Tisk,Tisk,Tisk. Be careful SKYAAZI"S these are rought times...be careful what you put out there, it could turn around and slap ya'll right back in the face. NEVER EVER SAY NEVER!!!

 

[FA Mikey]

🙄 🙄 :blink: Tisk,Tisk,Tisk. Be careful SKYAAZI"S these are rought times...be careful what you put out there, it could turn around and slap ya'll right back in the face. NEVER EVER SAY NEVER!!!

It was a reply to a usairways poster, who threw in the BK thing. If you are worried about things being put out there, as you say. It being put out in your own back yard.

 

[Skymess]

🙄 🙄 :blink: Tisk,Tisk,Tisk. Be careful SKYNAAZI"S these are rought times...be careful what you put out there, it could turn around and slap ya'll right back in the face. NEVER EVER SAY NEVER!!!

RIF~~~ Reading Comprehension is even better......

 

[eolesen]

Are you refering to the new biz class seats on AA's 767 or something else?

Yes. For all the money and time AA spent evaluating the new seat, they could have done a lot better.

It's fully flat by definition, but you're going to get a wedgie from sliding downhill... And it's only comfortable if you're less than 6' tall... which I'm not.

The "peapod on steroids" VOD system looked a bit cheap. Sure, there were a lot of options, but it's a huge pain to have to turn them back in before landing. I kinda like to have the option of watching Airshow up to the end, or to be able to listen to a music channel. Not on AA... Gotta turn those really valuable things in to the FA's so they can lock 'em up...

Of all the oneworld carriers I've flown this year, AA and CX are the only two still using proprietary DC plugs in J class. Everyone else seems to have standardized on providing a universal outlet that accepts either a two pin or two blade 110/220 plug. BA also accommodated their unique three blade 220V plug.

AA missed the boat here. And not by a small margin... Given the choice, I'm half tempted to just enroll in BA Executive Club and start flying them transatlantic. The pods they have in J are pretty cool... it's a little wierd sitting backward, but the privacy you get is pretty cool and it's not as claustraphobic as what CX is doing...


Mark, argue the semantics all you want to. Until the docket shows the US filing, and there are some responses, it's all just speculation. Could someone get a new route out of it? Sure. But I don't see AA going after it. They'll be too busy flying all those supposed nonstops out of MIA that your mole keeps saying will be loaded into the skeds...