US asks to delay its new PHL-PEK

[MAH4546]

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.

Argue what all I want? You really seem to have issues with reading comprehension.

I never said that AA would definitley go after it - I think they should.

Of course it is speculation that AA, DL, or others will protest US' delay, nobody claimed anything else.

They'll be too busy flying all those supposed nonstops out of MIA that your mole keeps saying will be loaded into the skeds...

I guess so, sort of like the two that were already loaded into the skeds a month ago, just I like I said they'd be.

When the break-even load factor on many of these medium haul Miami flights (as well as certain JFK and Dallas-LatAm flights) is in the 50%-range, AA needs more of this kind of flying.

 

[FWAAA]

Maybe a flight from LAX to PVG or PEK is as risky at startup as SFO-CAN, but I doubt it. As mentioned before, UA already has five other daily nonstops to PVG and/or PEK, so its desire to defer the new CAN route doesn't really prove anything (IMO) about the viability of a PVG or PEK route. Additionally, it's telling that nobody else applied for CAN and nobody opposed UA's requests to delay its startup.

If CO or NW or AA asks to defer their new EWR or DTW or ORD routes, then that would be evidence that would support sitting out an attempt to grab the frequencies from US.

I agree on the new AA J seats (at least on the 763). They're second rate. I posted as much a couple years ago when they were unveiled and I posted it again after I had the chance to sit in them. AA management is not immune to poor decision-making, and this one is huge. The Flagship Suites in F? Second to none. The new J? Eclipsed by DL's lie-flat J and UA's new J (assuming it ever gets installed) and perhaps other domestic airlines' J.

My prediction is that if US files a request for a delay, CO will be all over it so that CO can fly IAH-China and IMO, AA should likewise fight tooth and nail for those frequencies. If AA can't initiate two new routes to China next March and make it work, then AA might as well give up.

 

[FWAAA]

US has filed its request to delay startup on CLT-PHL-PEK for a year:

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

Mentions all the preparations US has made toward initiating service, but neglects to mention the absence of suitable airplanes on the property.

I say AA should oppose, and oppose strongly.

 

[Veritas]

Direct shortcut to the application

 

[MAH4546]

Thanks for the link guys, now let's watch and see what happens.

Six months ago this would be no-brainer for US to lose, but with the way the economy is right now, who knows...

 

[FWAAA]

In an article about the launch of ORD-DME today, Don Casey, manager of international planning, confirms that AA is still planning to launch its ORD-PEK flight next March despite record oil prices:

Last month, US Airways Group Inc. announced it would delay new service between Philadelphia and Beijing by one year due to high fuel costs. It estimated fuel to fly the route would cost more than $90 million per year, nearly double the airline's original estimate.

Casey said American was pushing ahead with Moscow and plans for a second China route, from Chicago to Beijing, next spring despite rising fuel costs.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080602/american_ai...oscow.html?.v=2

I'm still hoping that he's planning to attempt to put US' seven frequencies to good use next March as well.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

It appears that US hit Another $$ low, on Wall st. today.(Under $4 and steadily dropping)

To suggest that US NOW is looking like they have 1 foot in the Grave, and the other on a "banana peel", may not be too far from the truth.

(Just quoting the obvious LCCers. DEFINITLY NOT hoping for BAD things to affect anyone) !!!

 

[flydude]

It appears that US hit Another $$ low, on Wall st. today.(Under $4 and steadily dropping)

To suggest that US NOW is looking like they have 1 foot in the Grave, and the other on a "banana peel", may not be too far from the truth.

(Just quoting the obvious LCCers. DEFINITLY NOT hoping for BAD things to affect anyone) !!!

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sect...&dist=msr_2

 

[FWAAA]

It was not to be.

AS, AA, UA, DL, NW, CO and US filed a joint petition today seeking a two year blanket waiver of dormancy restrictions covering all limited authority international routes, so it looks like AA will not be seeking to grab any additional frequencies:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/comp...T-OST-2008-0181

 

[eolesen]

Well, this would explain why the DOT didn't put UA or US's frequencies up for grabs...

If it wasn't DOT strongly suggesting the airlines take this step, I'd bet my overtime for the next two years DOT knew it was in the works when the UA and US filings took place. Getting the legal departments of these seven carriers to agree on wording for a DOT filing had to take weeks to hash out...

 

[MAH4546]

United's frequencies WERE up for grab. There was a response period and no airline protested. When an airline request dormancy of a route there is an automatic response period with NO exceptions. During this period an airline can protest the dormancy application and ask for a route. The airline that request the dormancy then has a right of first refusal. They can keep operating the route and there will be no carrier selection process or they can give it up. A few years ago Delta requested this for LAX GDL and a few airlines protested and asked for the route. Delta of course ended up keeping the route. They had right of first refusal. That is essentially what this idiotic request from the majors and Alaska is asking for: elimination of this protest period that automatically puts routes up for grab subject to an airline's right of first refusal.

 

[Itestwell]

US has filed its request to delay startup on CLT-PHL-PEK for a year:

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

Mentions all the preparations US has made toward initiating service, but neglects to mention the absence of suitable airplanes on the property.

I say AA should oppose, and oppose strongly.

So, tell me, did AA oppose, oppose strongly, or...

:mf_boff:

Good one.

 

[Ralph]

There is no purpose to reactivating this thread at this time. It is closed.