Do you mean in the German market? CO passed UA in ASMs to Europe this summer, now third behind AA and DL.

I think you mean thrice weekly BBJ service ;)

I guess all the carriers flying out of SYD will fail because of a few diversions recently... Yes, CO (and every other carrier) loses some money on the diversions, but surely they accounted for them during their planning. Being an arm-chair airline exec is fun isn't it?

First you say CO would get lower yield because they're connecting pax onwards to YYZ from EWR, but then because there are no n/s to Canada from ARN, yield would be better. So which one wins out here?

Again, if its NOT profitable to fly 752s trans-atl, why not keep them on the transcons within the US (EWR-LAX/SFO/SEA/etc) and NOT get more planes. Why go get MORE planes so they can use the 752s trans-atl? Again, CO is getting more planes, so they can pull 752s from domestic routes and put them on trans-atl routes... If what you've been saying is true, then they should stay out of markets till they get the whale jet (with the super-duper-low casm's :rolleyes: ) to fly to europe.
Again, if you know the avg. load in BF and Y on CO's TXL/HAM routes, why not post it so all of us can form our own opinions? If you don't know, say so, because all we know is 2nd/3rd hand hear-say...

Again, CO doesn't really have any decent planes (for the routes they fly, 742s and DC10s aren't exactly fuel-efficient either...) parked, hence getting additional (newer) ones to fill-in where 752s used to be... Look, they got a good deal on the ex-ATA planes... maybe you're mad cus LH didn't think of flying narrowbodies trans-atl first ;) Then again, those heavy 321s that LH has can't fly as far....
Also, one would think keeping a pilot idle is a lot cheaper than filling up a plane full of jet-a at $70 a barrel, along with staffing it with FAs as well, if they're trying to "save" money by keeping pilots flying.

Maybe, but I figured LH would've gotten in the market sooner (maybe even head off DL before they started...) if they wanted that route.

I think half of Sweden's population is in STO.... :p They're having a baby-boom over there too, everywhere you go, tons of baby-carriages around.

Did I mention LH is also down-gauging somewhat for FRA-IAH as well? Going to to a 333 beginning Christmas this year. Guess they figured out that flying that overweight-underpowered 343 with hair dryers for engines these days isn't good for the bottom line.... ;)

No, since UA and LH have a revenue sharing agreement all LH TATL flights are effectively also UA flights making them by far the biggest carrier across the pond...

No, the BBJ will fly 6 times a week in addition to the daily KL 74M

Yield ex ARN is higher than ex Central Europe to YYZ, but CO cannot charge more than the competition, cause they can only offer what the competition is offering, one stop service into YYZ...

Maybe you did not realise it yet, but the whole US aviation industry is in dire straits, while the competition over the pond is doing very well, even with oil around $ 70. Yield in the US domestic market is pathetic, so the airlines come up with international expansion, but need planes and do not have the money, so come up with everything they have.With the introduction of the 737NG, the 752 is a useless fuel consuming piece of metal , which nobody needs anymore....

Well , LH invented the all C narrowbody service across the pond

And while I am not a huge fan of LH lately, they do not need to fly narrowbodies across the pond, they are able to fill much bigger planes....

No, flying is still regarded as the better option, although in the US we have a lot of pilots who are not working, but still getting paid...

But you are not saying that the US aviation inustry is a leading example, aren`t you ?

If you had done a little research, you would have noticed that LH flew TXL-IAD prior Sep. 11 with a 342 backed up with huge Government contracts, but stil the service was cut hours after Sep. 11 ....

LH is smart enough to realise that long haul point to point ( and as pointed out earlier TXL and ARN are far away from being secondary markets ) is not working and that fyling A 300-600`s ( with 270 seats ) from TXL to FRA and MUC and relying on FRA and MUC as massive intercontinental hubs is far more efficient than flying thin nonstop routes without any feed at both ends...

BTW, what is the alternative for flying the 343 now ? There is none, birds are mostly paid, fully depreciated and still relatively fuel efficient.A lot of 343 go into heavy maintenance anyway...

Well, I understand what you are saying. NW/KL do the same thing. In fact I believe they may have been the first two? Regardless I don't think you'll find many people here (or in the industry itself) who would size airlines in that manner. Bottom line CO metal offers more ASMs over the pond than UA metal. All most anyone you talk to would say that makes CO the larger transatlantic carrier.

Outside the German and beyond markets I am not sure it even matters. I for one would never connect thru FRA to get to EDI,MAD, etc.

I took AF to Cairo via CDG that was bad enough, once a non-stop comes along on a Western airline, I no longer see so any reason to connect. (well I would still connect if it was on US.....maybe)

Go look at KL's website, it shows that the BBJ will 3 times a week in November. Maybe its 6 times a week during higher travel periods... anyway, really somewhat off topic at this point :)

Oh my, I have no idea whats going here ;) I'd say the 321 is a useless fuel consuming piece of metal, which nobody needs anymore with the advent of the 737-900ER ;)
Look, AA and CO seems to be getting back up (finally). Also, oil prices affects not just the US airlines... unless foreign airlines figured out how to fly their current jets without jet-a...

Also, CO is in a good enough position to have ordered 2 additional 772ERs, in addition to a few 787s, 737s and 753s.

PrivatAir a part of LH? I didn't know that, that white-cross on red on their tails made me thought they were something else, thanks for the tip.

And CO/UA/AA can also fill big planes up for NYC-FRA/CDG/LON... Its easy when the route is between two huge markets... It gets interesting for these long/thin routes, because you end up connecting at least once, just a preference of WHERE you connect, in FRA/MUC, or EWR (ex. WAS-EWR-TXL or WAS-FRA-TXL).

Can you give some numbers backing up that assertion? I'd love to see how the numbers work out in favor of having pliots flying unprofitable routes vs. sitting idle. That would be eye-opening.

No, but then again, europe is also filled a lot of carriers vying for "domestic" traffic as well. Its just that most european countries (except the UK) tend to have only one major airline that flies internationally scheduled flights, out of one or two hubs. If you can do most of your business in an area that is more profitable (intl routes), its a lot easier to stay in the black. The US airlines, does not yet have that comfort. The day will come when most domestic routes are flown by "regional" operators, and provide feed for the major's intl flights.

Note that I said in my prev. post that if LH wanted the route, they would've started it before DL or CO, and you just backed up my guess. Thanks ;)

CO is smart enough to realise that long haul point to point ( and as pointed out earlier TXL and ARN are far away from being secondary markets ) is not working and that flying people in from DFW to IAH and EWR and relying on IAH and EWR as massive intercontinental hubs is far more efficient than flying thin nonstop routes without any feed at both ends...

Hmm, sounds good to me! Realize that CO is do the same for its routes to south-of-the-border destinations as well. Look, there are definitely long-thin routes that are worthwhile, like say LAX-SIN, just don't lump them all into the category of ABQ-DUS ;)

They'd do a lot better with 777s ;) Anyway, its good for them to fly a twin over here anyway, even if the 333 capacity is less than the 343, but burns less gas, given oil prices today. Oh, and AF is upgrading IAH-CDG from 772ER to their new 773ER.

Also, still waiting on some real numbers for HAM and TXL loads. ;)

Being a KLM Plat since 6 years now ( RW before that ) there is one thing for certain in the business.Never ever rely on a KLM website.
It`s 6 times a week, I read the press release.


One cannot compare apples with bananas , A 321 was designed nearly a decade earlier and is based on a highly successful family of planes. Airbus came up with the idea of one cockpit and type rating, when Boeing still dreamed about fly by wire….

Please…it is a wet lease…. Are you playing clueless or don`t you know better ?

Well , Pan Am went bankrupt, because of no feeding network, the first real indication that point to point cannot work !!! AFAIK nobody forces the US legacy carriers to fly domestic, they could certainly always rely on their international network…

Hardly any advantage for the European competition…

It was not even worthwhile flying it to IAD with connections there, so no way for DL and CO which both have higher costs on the route….

Thanks a lot for bringing LAX-SIN, because that is the prime example why such a flight is not working…SQ is lsing tons of money, because they underestimated one simple fact…

Simply not enough demand for the price they intended to charge for the new non-stop vs. the direct one stop….

Sorry, cannot provide numbers for TXL and HAM on a public forum, but know quite some variables of their monthly bills and that is enough to judge...

Indeed KLM and NW came up with the concept, but they play on another and absolutely industry leading level.For example NW has absolutely no presence in Europe anymore, beside a station manager at AMS, while United still has its own office with 15-20 people in FRA...Do they need it is another question ...

But if you share revenue and costs 50/50 it is absolutely no factor anymore on which metal you operate a flight, same for the amount of ASK...

That alone shows us how ineffective the CO operation across the pond actually is...

Well, I'd have to disagree, if indeed UA has became so dependant on LH after gaining PA's LHR operation; then they belong in Ch11 as they are, for a clearly AA has done very well with it Trans-A routes and they have built them up, without a full connection with BA. Futhermore, given that they are now also sending 757s across the Pond I have to question some of your reasoning.

I never have liked the idea of so-called "seamless" connection with code-share partners. After the disaster I had in Cairo in Aug with KL and AF I'll never even put an ounce of faith in such BS again. Unless that airline sends it's plane too XXX and have at least a few of their people on the ground I don't think they really fly there! I spent the night in Cairo airport re-learning this lesson just a few weeks ago!

LOL, lets keep this on topic, I won't bother with B vs. a here... leave that at a.net ;) But I'll have to at least say this: the 787 is outselling the 350 right now, even though airbus has gone back to the drawing board 4 times now, and the 380 program hasn't exactly been running great either, with airlines seeking compensation for missed delivery dates. Way to go airbust.... :p

Ok, first you say Pan Am died because of no feed, then you basically say that US carriers don't have to fly any domestic routes, so basically, in your world, there would be no US carriers because they shouldn't fly domestic routes due to low yield, but then they can't fly intl routes either because they have no feed, due to the former. We'll just have Amtrak, but oh, wait, they aren't making any money either, and is being kept alive by subsidies anyway... guess we'll just drive our ess-U-vees everywhere :rolleyes:


I was just using that as an example, hence the (ex.). I'm talking about traveler's preference in where they connect, that is all.

I think they'll be more successful when they ditch those over-weight and underperforming 345s for some 772LRs ;) The problem is that this route really needs 3-class service, as they wanted to put F seats on the planes, but the 345 just can't handle the additional weight. Plus the fact that the 345 carries less than 200 pax, and not that much cargo either, contributes to the current failure.

Thanks, hear-say it is. When CO pulls out of these routes, I'll come back and acknowledge your clairvoyance ;)

Geez, I think you should replace CO with another airline, like US or DL or UA, because those are carriers that actually lost money last quarter. Even UA, with its "wunderbar" trans-atl profit/cost-sharing agreement with LH, still can't squeeze out a profit. And UA also have "lucrative" routes to Asia as well.

While CO and AA managed to make money. Funny how both also happen to run some trans-atl routes with 752s, and have limited routes to Asia. Although with the recent oil-price surge, I'm sure most US airlines will be back in the red again :( Except maybe WN :)

The problem is that they are not even able to fill a 345 and the sticker price of a 772 is considerably higher than the one on a 345, add the low depreciation years of SQ and as pointed out they will not make any money with any aircraft on the route...

And indeed looking at the US aviation industry after deregulation, it was a complete failure and the hub and spoke model never really worked continously on any carrier.

US Air had a profit margin of 12 % in 1997 and that was the best performance so far by a US legacy carrier, nowadays DL lost more than $ 12 million a day in 2004.At one point one has to state that the whole business model is simply not working, neither with oil at $ 10 per barrel, nor at $ 70...

Important question now, can the A 380 with lower CASM than any other aircraft save the industry and is the European and consequently Asian aviation business also doomed for failure in the 2nd or 3rd decade after deregulation...

LOL, CASM isn't everything. Sure, airlines can run routes with 380s, but can they fly them often enough with the schedules that biz travellers want? The whole notion of the 380 (or any airplane for that matter) that can save the industry is even more absurd. I mean, sure, CO can run DFW-IAH with one or two 380 daily, and would cover the capacity thats already there, but travellers also need flexibility of the current schedule offered as well. The 380 would be great for leisure routes, if they can certify it for the 800+ pax config, as well as congested routes. But that alone will not save any airline, let alone the industry.

If you'd like, please continue this debate with a new post in another forum, as bumping this thread about CO adding a new frequency with our thoughts on the industry as a whole seems a bit inconsiderate to others who doesn't share our interests ;)

Very unlikely... UA is in no position to make enemies at this point. Plus, you're assuming that UA isn't already planning some major announcement of its own, which is highly likely.

I'd be curious to learn your source for this information.

Perhaps, but I don't see how the match-up is significant in either case. Whether or not the new US hubs are strong nodes for the Star Alliance or not, with UA remaining (at present) the dominant US alliance carrier, I am not sure IAH/EWR nodes are critical, considering strong connections through ORD, JFK, IAD, LAX, etc.

Also, let's not forget that the entire landscape of US carriers is changing. To discuss who is best for certain alliances is almost moot until we see how the whole industry shakes out over the next year or so.

1. US/HP *will* be an "enemy" to United, because United will lose millions in codeshare revenues from the new airline keeping its midcon/transcon/West Coast pax "in-house" vs. sending them over to United.

2. US Airways itself has mentioned on its website and in regulatory filings that United has to approve any US codeshare/merger deal with another US airline, and that US' ongoing presence in the Star Alliance is dependent upon a continued UA/US codesharing agreement.

Therefore, if UA did indeed want to sever ties with US for any reason, now (or soon) would be the time to do so.