US to launch Express flights CLT-YOW

[gabby]

You do see the logical fallacy there...

Jim

Ha, you made me smile.

 

[Hope777]

Are you commenting on how stupid the website is, or actually doubting the existence of USX E175s? There are 38, flown by Republic.

Aircraft operated as US Airways Express as of February 2010 [2]:

Aircraft Pax Total Operated

Bombardier CRJ200 50 113 Air Wisconsin, Mesa Airlines, PSA Airlines
Bombardier CRJ700 70 14 PSA Airlines
Bombardier CRJ900 86 38 Mesa Airlines
Bombardier DH81 37 33 Piedmont Airlines
Bombardier DH82 37 6 Mesa Airlines
Bombardier DH83 50 11 Piedmont Airlines
Embraer ERJ 145 50 12 Chautauqua Airlines, Trans States Airlines
Embraer E-170 76 20 Republic Airlines
Embraer E-175 86 38 Republic Airlines
Saab 340B 34 10 Colgan Air

US Airways Express fleet total: 329
US Airways mainline fleet total: 347

US Airways Express total daily flights: 1,818
US Airways mainline total daily flights: 1,242

I am Well aware that the EMB175 Flies on our Colors. I was pointing out the fact that USAirways.com is Sub Standard and does not contain the correct information for Travelers. Maybe the 40K Fine will help our Fine I T Department get their act together.
Also Nice that You pointed out the Fact we are an Express Carrier.

 

[PHLfa88]

Yeah..We start a CRJ from CLT to YOW for one of our Big new International Destination and DL Starts New service from JFK to both CPH and ARN..Imagine That! Our IDIOT Bean Counters said we were Not making any money in ARN....Bull S@@T!!

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Yeah..We start a CRJ from CLT to YOW for one of our Big new International Destination and DL Starts New service from JFK to both CPH and ARN..Imagine That! Our IDIOT Bean Counters said we were Not making any money in ARN....Bull S@@T!!

maybe if US actually tried flying there more than four months of the year, it would capture more of that "Swenska market. The Scandinavian market is a good one, but SK is having an awful time these days. Many analysts expect that SK may pull back from its long haul intercontinental markets (as Malev and Olympic have). While I would hate to see that happen, now might be a time establish a firmer foothold there. I am glad the seasonal Oslo flight did not end up being chopped.

 

[FutureUScapt]

Yeah..We start a CRJ from CLT to YOW for one of our Big new International Destination and DL Starts New service from JFK to both CPH and ARN..Imagine That! Our IDIOT Bean Counters said we were Not making any money in ARN....Bull S@@T!!

And the reasoning behind canceling a profitable route would be what?

In the last two years, DL has also canceled or drastically reduced more longhaul routes than US has in its entire international network so I'm not sure they are the best example of success.

maybe if US actually tried flying there more than four months of the year, it would capture more of that "Swenska market. The Scandinavian market is a good one, but SK is having an awful time these days. Many analysts expect that SK may pull back from its long haul intercontinental markets (as Malev and Olympic have). While I would hate to see that happen, now might be a time establish a firmer foothold there. I am glad the seasonal Oslo flight did not end up being chopped.

I think if US and SK could've agreed on a codeshare that it would've provided enough extra demand to atleast keep it around in the summer. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see US return to ARN seasonally in a few years once the TATL market fully rebounds.

 

[john john]

And the reasoning behind canceling a profitable route would be what?

Because competitors came in and took over with a plan and better product

 

[AirbusA310]

ARN was doing just fine when we used a 767...then someone genius decides to put a 757 in the route and what do you know its no longer a profitable route ans just like that it gets the axe..

 

[strangiatotheme]

Because competitors came in and took over with a plan and better product

So a carrier would cancel a route that was profitable even after a competitor "with a plan and a better product" started flying it as well?? I don't follow...

 

[john john]

So a carrier would cancel a route that was profitable even after a competitor "with a plan and a better product" started flying it as well?? I don't follow...

Just look at were WN has moved in US has cut back

 

[FutureUScapt]

Because competitors came in and took over with a plan and better product

???

US suspended the service before DL even announced that it was beginning JFK-ARN

ARN was doing just fine when we used a 767...then someone genius decides to put a 757 in the route and what do you know its no longer a profitable route ans just like that it gets the axe..

You sub out a B767 for a plane that costs ~25% less to operate and this makes the route less profitable???

So let's walk through this:

You have a "profitable" route. All of a sudden, your costs of operating the route go down 25% and it is now unprofitable??? Are you noticing the disconnect here?

Of course I suppose you are going to try to tell me that we were making all our money on flying cargo to ARN which must've more than accounted for the 25% higher costs of the B767...right

 

[strangiatotheme]

Just look at were WN has moved in US has with cut back

So you're implying that the routes would be unprofitable, right? I'd still like to know the reasons behind cutting a profitable route. If it is making money even with competiton, why cut it?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'd still like to know the reasons behind cutting a profitable route.

I think the reasoning was that someone else coming into that market with a "better plan/product" would make the route unprofitable and result in it being dropped. That's just my take, however.

Jim

 

[AirbusA310]

Not gonna say that we were making all the money flying cargo to ARN with the 767 but I am gonna say that nobody in their right mind wanted to spend all that time on a 757 and that could be why that even at 25% less cost to operate it was not profitable to run ARN with the 757

 

[BoeingBoy]

You sub out a B767 for a plane that costs ~25% less to operate and this makes the route less profitable???

Two things to consider. If it was profitable with the 767 why put a 757 on it? Read FlyerTalk and you'll find that a lot of frequent flyers don't like the narrow body 757 on the TA routes - they much prefer the wide body. That sentiment among passengers could result in a route that was marginally profitable becoming unprofitable with the 757 despite it's better economics.

Jim

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Two things to consider. If it was profitable with the 767 why put a 757 on it? Read FlyerTalk and you'll find that a lot of frequent flyers don't like the narrow body 757 on the TA routes - they much prefer the wide body. That sentiment among passengers could result in a route that was marginally profitable becoming unprofitable with the 757 despite it's better economics.

Jim

I don't understand this "widebodies are more comfortable the a 757" business. It's how the carrier configures the seats that sets the comfort level. I've flown a Martinair DC-10 across the Pond, 3-4-3 across and precious little pitch. Finnair's 2-5-2 layout was not much fun, either but the leg room was better. I would take a 757 any time, even with HP/US seat pitch.

CO, a carrier widely regarded as a nice one, flies the 757 in several smaller TATL markets.