New LGW-LAS Route?
 

Hi all,

I've got a couple of friends who work for US Air out in Charlotte, who have said there is talk of a direct flight from London, UK, to Las Vegas?

Anyone else heard of this possible future route?

Cheers....

According to Scott Kirby no flights from the west coast: "US Air Senior Vice President Scott Kirby said the airline plans to add more European flights in 2007 and 2008 but not from Phoenix or Vegas because it does not have long-haul planes that can fly directly to Western or Eastern Europe or Asia."

Here is a link

It wouldnt surprise me that US wants to do this route. Could a A333 do this route? According to airliners.net the A333 w/ P&W engines has a range of 4550miles. According to great circle mapper its 4565miles to LAS from LGW. They need the A332 or A350 to do this. I can see LAS-CLT-LGW. Can a 767-200ER do LAS-LGW?

In my opinion US needs the A332, or a 763ER. If this were going to be a route expect it to be weekends only or a Mon, Wed, Fri, flights.

They have it now, flight 99. This is a direct flight, not a non-stop flight. Its a 330 on the overwater segment, 757 on the transcon.

-JC

interesting because I would have thought that the A330 could have covered it.....in fact I could be wrong, but don't BMI use the A330 direct from Manchester??

Again, Virgin & BMI do the route from Thurs & Sun so they should look into it, would help the people heading out to the West Coast?

Hi,

Actually, virgin do the route daily from May 2006 ( currently 6* weekly)

Bmi do the route twice weekly.

Regards

TBS

The 330-200 can make the trip from MAN or LGW to LAS. According to airliners.net the 200 series can travel 6400nm. US currently only has A330-300's. BMI has the 200 series. And VS uses an A340.

Which means it's not really a direct flight except in the delusional minds of airline schedule planners. Direct service traditionally means you don't have to change planes. That US Airways joke of "direct service" is just that, a joke. It's connecting service with the same flight number.

It's not just US. I flew UA PHL-ORD-NRT-BKK and return last week. My PHL-ORD and ORD-NRT flights had the same flight number (733 and 777). I received mileage as if I flew PHL-NRT. Before FTers call me a heathen... this was preferable to my other option which was to take the other ORD-NRT flight which coincidentally shares the same flight number as NRT-BKK (would have cost me more in miles). Same thing on the return. And even though UA flies a 744 ORD-NRT and NRT-BKK it was a different 744. Many airlines do this, not just US. They do this so that it shows up first when using various booking engines because it appears to be a direct flight.....You'll note that most US TA flights share a number with another flight usually on the West Coast. It's US way of competing with airlines that offer true non-stop service.

Exactly, dukeman. It is not a 'US Airways joke' at all, nor is it part of any airline planners' "delusional minds" as per FCYTravis. Anyone who understands how flights are marketed knows that some are sold as 'direct', with the same flight number, even if it involves a change of aircraft. It's a marketing tool, not an operational one. It merely enables an airline to point out to a travel agent via their system that they also fly the same route as their competitor(s), albeit with a chage en-route. There is no deception here. All airlines do it.

At Res, we often get passengers calling in a rage because they have been sold what they consider a non-stop flight. 99.9% of the time this is because travel agents have erroneously told them "that flight is non-stop", or "It's just a touchdown in PHL, you can stay on the same plane..." Both of which are nonsense.

The reason for their dissatisfaction is purely that travel agents have not correctly informed them. When travel agents book these flights, they immediately get a message along the lines of "Warning: Change of aircraft in PHL: must inform passengers." If they don't notice this, or choose to ignore it to get a sale, they are to blame entirely.

Call it what you will. I think it's patently stupid to market a flight as "direct" when it's *not* - make all the excuses you want, but it's essentially deceptive.

That "dissatisfaction" and confusion would not happen if airlines simply loaded connecting flights into their systems and didn't pretend these flights are something they aren't.

Although I agree with Travis about the whole direct thing, fact is, everyone knows with US Air that they most of their flights are connecting. Also, if you book your flights online, that will generally show you that you have a stop over. As warbo says, your travel agent is mugging you off because he should know better!!!

Wonder if the plans include more international long hauls from CLT!

I could envision CLT-CDG coming back at some point... but I'd guess that's about it. I wonder how LH's CLT-MUC service is doing? I'd bet they sell plenty of seats due to Star connections and I believe there to be a good bit of German based businesses with US operations around CLT.

BMI Las Vegas - Manchester to become 3 flights a week (Tue/Thu/Sun) –
March 26 (www.flybmi.com)

BMI & VS are HP partners and are/will be US partners. As such, LAS<->UK seems highly unlikely.

Wirelessly posted (Samsung-SPHA900 AU-MIC-A900/2.0 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

possibly las to fra/muc?

Both are further than LGW.

From To Distance
LAS LGW 5253 mi / 4565 nm
LAS MUC 5767 mi / 5011 nm
LAS FRA 5583 mi / 4851 nm

The only way they do either of those routes is if they want to route traffic to LH. In any case, they have no planes that'll do it until the 332s or 350s come online.

Don't kid yourself...
 

The difference between a "non-stop" and a "one-stop" and a "direct flight" is a VERY WELL KNOWN fact among frequent fliers. There is NO smoke and mirrors or deception on the part of US Airways here - ALL airlines do it.

Check out UA's "DIRECT" flight 890 from Singapore to Washington DC to see what I mean... you'll find yourself going from a 777 (SIN-NRT) to a 747 (NRT-LAX) to an Airbus 320 (LAX-IAD) to cover that "direct" and single number flight #890...

I respectfully disagree. There IS major deception.

In the old days(which weren't that long ago), a direct flight was one that involved no change of plane, yet still made an intermediate stop. This is very different than making a stop and having to go get on another plane. While frequent travelers understood the difference between direct and nonstop, many did not and were still annoyed that the plane was stopping, but not half as annoyed as those who now learn that it's stopping AND they have to switch.

There IS in fact marketing bait and switch going on here because an airline that flies from LAX-PHL-LGW with ONE flight number on TWO very different aircraft is NOT flying the same route as the airline that flies LAX-LGW nonstop. Very, very different distinctions.

This should be a DOT initiative to require airlines to only market direct flights when they are, in fact, on the same equipment. If the playing field is really level that way, then the effect would be relative. The nonstop airlines would get the preference in the booking engines(and rightly so), followed by real direct flights, followed by actual connections.

I don't buy the argument that "everybody's doing it, so it's ok". It's not because more than half the ignorant non-frequent flying public are the ones who are getting shafted.

I totally disagree... what a direct flight is, is the airline routing you from point a to b via one flight number. They have the connections established and set up... and you may or may not be on the same aircraft. It is a tool to sell a flight with connections pre-determined by the airline. Very simple, if you like non-stops, only buy non-stops...

What happens when flight xx arrives at the intermediate point 3 hours late and the continuation of flight xx is already gone? There's nothing direct about it. it's a connecting flight.

If it were really direct and arrived at the intermediate point 3 hours late, the pax would still continue on without having to worry about the late connection.

I'm surprised at many long term FTers here posted what they are on this thread. It's apparent that many of you think that this is a fairly recent practice and done expressly to mislead the flying public.

While I can agree that it has always been a tad sneaky, I must point out that this sort of a/c change at connection points has been the rule since at least the late 1960s when PA and TW were ruling the roost on large inbound a/c to points like JFK/MIA/STL/LAX/SFO, etc and the continuation of flights from any number of international points continued on domestically on smaller a/c (virutally always 72Ss since that's what everyone had then).

Since then, virtually every US carrier with significant international feed has opted to follow the same model. Note that they may only list one combination of city sets for "through" flights (e.g. MCO-PHL-LGW cannot have the second leg (PHL-LGW also flight sharing with another inbound domestic flight, say from CLT-PHL).)

Call it what you will, but to pile on with criticism of late seems to have ignored recent decades of standard practice within the industry. I do not believe that this is more prevalent today than it was in 1973.

Pick up an old PA/EA/TW/DL/UA etc timetable from the past 30 years and you'll see this. Nothing new here folks.

Getting back to the topic, I'm sure it'll have to wait until 2011 when they start getting the A350s. They just don't have the hardware right now, or extra cash to buy it.

Respectfully, I have to agree that it is kind of deceptive when they change aircraft. Here's what US Air says a direct flight is:

"Direct Flight - Flight does not require a change of aircraft from point of origin to destination but makes one or more planned intermediate stops en route to customer's final destination."

That's from the terms of transportation, available at Travel Policies

Contrast that with the definition of a connecting flight from the same page: "Connecting Flight - Requires customers to change aircraft at an intermediate point for the continuation of their trip to their destination."

As far as I'm concerned, US (and all the others) should just call the flight what it is - if it is nonstop, that's fine. If it's connecting, that's fine. And if it's direct, that's fine. But don't call a connecting flight a direct flight! :)

So no DIRECT flight from LGW to LAS then? ;)

I appreciate what you are saying, but it is absolutely untrue. Nobody is pretending anything. As i said earlier, if a flight has the same flight number on its connection, it may appear in the travel agents system as 'direct' as opposed to 'non-stop', but nonetheless the travel agent receives an immediate message to inform their potential passengers that, although the flight number is the same, there is a change of aircraft. If the passengers are not informed, it is because the travel agent is dimwitted enough not to notice the fact that it is a connection; or they choose to ignore the message to secure the sale. This happens a lot, and we at Res deal with the debris.

There is no deception whatsoever, and nothing is pretended (except by certain travel agencies). Hope this enlightens the issue for you.

I think it would "enlighten" us even more if the airlines would just tell the truth to its customers. If the only thing that differentiates a direct flight from a connecting flight is one vs. two flight numbers, then I would suggest that there is no difference between them. So stop marketing them that way.

Just because other airlines do it and it has been done in the past does not make it right. Indeed, if it isn't deceptive, then why do airlines do it?

With US leaving Star Alliance(possibly), this may be a new route. LGW-LAS!

Nonsense.

Yes, it's a marketing tool in order to attract passengers from point A to point B. It's done in order to market fares between point A and B, not offer a nonstop service.

No, it is not in any way deceptive because, despite having the same flight number, such flights are clearly advertised as connecting services. Nothing is being hidden. I really can't comprehend the problem here. All airlines do it, and they don't hoodwink passengers into thinking it's the same plane all the way through. Absolutely no-one is being 'shafted', to paraphrase your comment.

I'll say it for the third time :D If passengers think such flights are direct, it's usually because travel agents mistakenly (or deliberately) have sold it as such, despite the clear information to the contrary provided to them openly by the airlines. If they book direct with the airlines, they are clearly informed at point of sale there is a connection involved.

This has been explained by several posters now: I fail to comprehend your continued confusion. :confused:

I suggest that you book and fly a "direct" flight and watch the pax around you when it is explained that they need to change planes. There are always a significant number confused or annoyed by it.

And in these days when over half of all tickets are sold over the Internet in one form or another, I don't think that the problem lies with travel agents. It is the airlines that insist on using methods that are confusing and deceptive.

I don't think that the question is one of "confusion" or lack of understanding. We understand exactly what is going on. That is why we consider it reprehensible marketing on the part of the airlines.

With what aircraft? Nothing they've got will consistently make it non-stop in both directions.

Haven't they also been pretty clear about staying in *A? Today's developments notwithstanding, that's been the stance. UA is but one member in the alliance and it's very likely that someone like LH would probably step in and remind the children to behave....

You are not reading clearly or between the lines at all for that manner. These are all Forward-Looking Statesments. We are just speculating. Obviously, with the aircraft we currently posess, we cannot make this run at all. But right now, with all this aircraft buying frenzy almost anything is possible. Stay tuned for more, then respond. As of right now just speculate, and assume.

And of course our favorite McFlyPHL tagline. SHOCKING!


Forward-Looking Statements

Certain of the statements contained herein should be considered "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as "may," "will," "expect," "intend," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "plan," "could," "should," and "continue" and similar terms used in connection with statements regarding the outlook of US Airways Group, Inc. (the "Company"), expected fuel costs, the revenue and pricing environment, and expected financial performance. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the Company's management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that could cause the Company's actual results and financial position to differ materially from these statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following: the ability of the Company to obtain and maintain any necessary financing for operations and other purposes (including compliance with financial covenants); the ability of the Company to maintain adequate liquidity; the impact of changes in fuel prices; the impact of economic conditions; changes in prevailing interest rates; the ability to attract and retain qualified personnel; the ability of the Company to attract and retain customers; the ability of the Company to obtain and maintain commercially reasonable terms with vendors and service providers; the cyclical nature of the airline industry; competitive practices in the industry, including significant fare restructuring activities by major airlines; labor costs; security-related and insurance costs; weather conditions; government legislation and regulation; relations with unionized employees generally and the impact and outcome of the labor negotiations; the impact of global instability including the potential impact of current and future hostilities, terrorist attacks, infectious disease outbreaks or other global events; the impact of the resolution of remaining claims in US Airways Group's Chapter 11 proceedings; the ability of the Company to fund and execute its business plan following the Chapter 11 proceedings and the merger; and other risks and uncertainties listed from time to time in the companies' reports to the SEC. There may be other factors not identified above of which the Company is not currently aware that may affect matters discussed in the forward-looking statements, and may also cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed. The Company assumes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting such estimates other than as required by law. Additional factors that may affect the future results of the Company are set forth in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 and in the filings of the Company with the SEC, which are available at www.usairways.com and www.americawest.com.

Wow. You actually found a 10K/Q like document. Impressive.

Do you have any business sense at all? The items in "forward looking statements" are generally worst case, doomsday scenarios. Take a look at some from when US was making money hand over fist, and you'll see that there are some glum statements there as well.

Seriously, why would they leave *A? They've pretty clearly stated they intend to stay. Further, the UA agreement still benefits both parties (particularly UA on the East coast, less so the new US out west). There is near zero incentive on either end to discontinue it.

As for a "buying frenzy", three secondhand 757s and the previously ordered/canceled/changed E-jets does not a "frenzy" make. They're also retiring older planes as well (see 733's and 734's). You might also note that a sale of 25 757s by UA would have to be disclosed via UA and US as it could be considered "material" to operations.

Again, this is all speculation, and forward looking statements. There are plenty reasons why United, may want to call it quits. I am not the one who thinks that US will leave STAR, however I am weighing possibilites, if and possibly should this happen, US will definately have to condiser more to Europe routes. But I truly believe US will not leave *A and heres what I said earlier: http://www.usaviation.com/forums/ind...dpost&p=364108



And of course our favorite McFlyPHL tagline. SHOCKING!

It's called a change of gauge flight. It has been around for years. It's NOT deceptive if -- as the rules state -- the airline or the travel agent discloses it BEFORE booking.

These flights are leftover from the era when travel agents did 90% of the airline bookings. Travel agents were also notoriously lazy and would book whatever was on the first screen of their display. At the time, all the non-stop and "direct" flights would appear first on the display.

In the old days, it was absolutely funny to look at a TWA monitor at JFK. For example, there may have actually been 1 physical plane going to Paris, but it would be listed with 8 different flight numbers!!

I'm not so sure what you're trying to say here through the gibberish, but it looks as though you posted gibberish somewhere else and imply that UA may want to call it quits with the 757s. The same plane that they use on popular ps routes. With ps rumored on and off to be expanding to run from IAD, I doubt that. Further, they can consider routes all they want. There aren't planes to fly them. There aren't planes to fly many domestic routes, hence the transition to USX.

What you have posted is 100 % gb/b.s. There arent planes to fly many domestic routes, no? What about all those planes that they are getting rid of? Were gonna be getting new planes, not for existing routes, but expansion. Big expansion!

er....I was only wondering if there was going to be a LGW-LAS route.... :p

What new planes for what big expansion?

The Embraer 190s will likely be used on existing routes that have been RJized, and to replace some 737s. They'll only be delivered very slowly - one per month for the next two years.

The 20 possible 757's, theyre will not be taking over 737 or RJ routes. Some will probably got transcon, but most will be for new routes, or additional intl service!