Originally Posted by
JimInOhio
That wasn't my point. The supposition in this thread is EWR-LHR is one of, if not the most, profitable routes UA serves. For fun, I went looking for something to back that up on a couple of RT fares a month apart from each other. If anything, it suggested EWR-ORD is more profitable. Heck, how do we know UA makes any money at all on some of these routes? No one has offered any data at all one way or the other.
But is it not an even greater supposition that one can judge profitability of two routes by the cost of P fares tickets? Is that the 150 plus other passengers in the flight traveling on fares other than P fares; passengers for which that pair is not O and D (i.e where either is a connecting airport); cargo; the cumulative number of flights (ie seats being sold) on that route; and costs and opportunity costs associated with running a particular route and flight, do not contribute to profitability? I think it is far too simplistic if we assume that differential cost and availability of discounted business fares or upgrades is indicative of profitability of one route compared to another
Originally Posted by
EWR764
Are you suggesting that EWR-LHR is a laggard, and compared to what?
I can't get it either. UA runs more flights on this route than any other intercontinental city pair. Maybe I am naive, but why would an airline run 7 flights a day on a money losing route?