Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Asia > China
Reload this Page >

Trump administration bans China passenger planes effective June 16

Trump administration bans China passenger planes effective June 16

Old Jun 7, 20, 9:02 am
  #106  
Ambassador: China
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by moondog View Post
I agree completely. We were conditioned for $2k during 2008, and were okay with it. $10k, by contrast, tips the scales.
UA needs to update their google advertising.

anacapamalibu is offline  
Old Jun 7, 20, 9:56 am
  #107  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 92,667
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
It would be quite a scene to see B6 WN 737 airplanes landing in shanghai.
Of course I'm just trying to have some fun with this, but with a wet lease arrangement some of the big birds that are currently parked by DL and UA could be used. For example, DL has some excess 777s at the moment and they've flown to China in the past. Wet leases would be faster than creating subsidiaries United One, United Two, etc. and getting approval for them to fly.

I also pointed out somewhere that USA and other foreign carriers will mostly want flights to PVG since the divert for testing and possible quarantine exercise if one is trying to fly into Beijing would be a big mess for carriers that don't operate domestic flights within mainland China.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Jun 7, 20, 11:21 am
  #108  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 3,757
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
Of course I'm just trying to have some fun with this, but with a wet lease arrangement some of the big birds that are currently parked by DL and UA could be used. For example, DL has some excess 777s at the moment and they've flown to China in the past. Wet leases would be faster than creating subsidiaries United One, United Two, etc. and getting approval for them to fly.
But does WN have any pilots who know how to fly the 777?
STS-134 is offline  
Old Jun 7, 20, 1:10 pm
  #109  
m.y
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC *E HHonors Gold
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by STS-134 View Post
But does WN have any pilots who know how to fly the 777?
In a wet lease, the arrangement includes the pilot and cabin crew to operate the flight, as opposed to a dry lease, that includes the plane only.
MSPeconomist and STS-134 like this.
m.y is online now  
Old Jun 7, 20, 1:14 pm
  #110  
m.y
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC *E HHonors Gold
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
I also pointed out somewhere that USA and other foreign carriers will mostly want flights to PVG since the divert for testing and possible quarantine exercise if one is trying to fly into Beijing would be a big mess for carriers that don't operate domestic flights within mainland China.
China has designated 37 airports that accept incoming international flights with the goal of spreading the flights around. I'm sure foreign carriers all want flight to PEK/PVG, but likely many of the flights will be send to places like CZX, HET, HRB, NNG, these flights will still be full, but foreign airlines will need to set up logistics on the ground to handle the flights.
m.y is online now  
Old Jun 7, 20, 10:52 pm
  #111  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 35,229
Originally Posted by STS-134 View Post
Good points.


Under control? You mean like how (even according to Chinese media) they found 300 asymptomatic carriers of it in Wuhan? That's not under control. Test and quarantine all incoming travelers no matter their origin if you want to get this under control.
It doesn't really matter--flights from areas with less cases to areas with more cases are basically irrelevant in terms of risk. There should be no restrictions on passengers from China.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 12:10 am
  #112  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PVG
Posts: 803
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
It doesn't really matter--flights from areas with less cases to areas with more cases are basically irrelevant in terms of risk. There should be no restrictions on passengers from China.
The optics of doing that would look too bad.
tauphi is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 3:38 am
  #113  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by STS-134 View Post
Lower 48-ANC-NRT-PVG? That's quite an annoying route although I could see people doing it to avoid paying $20k. But I doubt Japanese authorities would give them permission.
​​​
Or are we talking about a modified island hopper route, like HNL-MAJ-GUM-PVG?
I'll vote for 48-ANC-NRT-PVG. It's shorter than 48-SFO/LAX-HNL-GUM-PVG.

I think B6/WN 737 can do it.
kb1992 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 5:55 am
  #114  
Ambassador: China
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
What's behind the resumption of China-U.S. passenger flights?

Politics and Health

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-0...9K8/index.html

Last edited by anacapamalibu; Jun 8, 20 at 6:16 am
anacapamalibu is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 9:36 am
  #115  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 3,757
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
I'll vote for 48-ANC-NRT-PVG. It's shorter than 48-SFO/LAX-HNL-GUM-PVG.

I think B6/WN 737 can do it.
Best they could hope for is a 2nd freedom route, because I don't think the Japanese are going to allow a bunch of potentially COVID-19 infected Americans to roam around the airport.
STS-134 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 11:49 am
  #116  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 796
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
I'll vote for 48-ANC-NRT-PVG. It's shorter than 48-SFO/LAX-HNL-GUM-PVG.

I think B6/WN 737 can do it.
Can Alaska and JetBlue's A321neos do HNL-PVG nonstop if seats are blocked off?
sincx is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 6:26 pm
  #117  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,461
The speculation about AS and B6 flying to China is fun and all but itís not gonna happen. Does anyone know if the 1 flight a week have been approved by the Chinese yet for DL and UA and what 4 routes will be flown by the combination of Chinese and USA carriers? Or is this still in diplomatic limbo?
travelinmanS is online now  
Old Jun 8, 20, 7:03 pm
  #118  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by travelinmanS View Post
The speculation about AS and B6 flying to China is fun and all but it’s not gonna happen. Does anyone know if the 1 flight a week have been approved by the Chinese yet for DL and UA and what 4 routes will be flown by the combination of Chinese and USA carriers? Or is this still in diplomatic limbo?
Not yet. DOT order gives CAAC until June 16 to decide.

China is in a tough spot. If they agree 2 weekly flights, then they must cut two flights and people who bought tickets will be mad.

If they agree 4, then UA/DL will operate 2 each. This crushes 5-1 policy and they lose face in public.

China only has itself to blame. Whoever designed idiotic 5-1 policy clearly has no idea about international air rights. The whole thing makes China look bad among international community.
kb1992 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 7:46 pm
  #119  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PMD
Programs: UA*G, NW, AA. WR-G, HH-S, IHG, ALL. TT-GE.
Posts: 2,364
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
China only has itself to blame. Whoever designed idiotic 5-1 policy clearly has no idea about international air rights. The whole thing makes China look bad among international community.
It wasn't the 5 ones exactly; it's the March 12 baseline that was the problem. If they heeded the USDOT warning, the US might have been satisfied with 4 vs. 2.
HkCaGu is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 8:09 pm
  #120  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 796
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
Not yet. DOT order gives CAAC until June 16 to decide.

China is in a tough spot. If they agree 2 weekly flights, then they must cut two flights and people who bought tickets will be mad.

If they agree 4, then UA/DL will operate 2 each. This crushes 5-1 policy and they lose face in public.

China only has itself to blame. Whoever designed idiotic 5-1 policy clearly has no idea about international air rights. The whole thing makes China look bad among international community.
I suspect the Chinese government is quite happy to agree to 2 weekly flights for each side.

The PRC wants to minimize the risk of returnees spreading the virus, so China would love to stop all inbound flights from countries where COVID is still uncontrolled. But cutting off travel completely makes China look hypocritical (since China criticized other countries for cutting flights back in January) and also pisses off citizens who are stuck outside the country. The 5-1 policy was meant to open the door just enough so overseas student, etc. won't be too pissed off, but still substantially limit risk.

However, if it's the US government that's limiting flights, China can just shrug its shoulders and say "hey that's the best we can do, it's out of our control," and only having 4 weekly flights keeps the number of returnees and the risk of re-seeding COVID to a minimum until a vaccine is found.

1 of the 2 weekly flights will be given to CA. The other weekly frequency may rotate between MU and CZ.


Alternatively, with CX possibly getting bought out by CA, maybe CZ can finally join OneWorld and get AA to restart a China flight, so there'll be 3 weekly flights on each side.
sincx is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: