jdcece

I live in Phoenix which is obviously a major US hub. There is only 1 daily nonstop to Europe in this market . Strange Right? ( PHX is the 5th busiest airport in the US the last I heard!) - British Airways PHX-LHR. I hear this BA flight is operating at a very high load factors. Not surprising - a monopoly. Why does US not enter this market? Maybe PHX to FRA to connect with LH throughout Europe and beyond? There are so many US loyal flyers on the west coast who would probably take advantage of this. Couldn't the 767-200 do this nonstop?. This seems like a no brainer to me. Seems to make way more sense than the CLT-HNL run. I would think this routing would be much more rich with business vs. leisure passengers. I just used US miles to fly a colleague from PHX to Stockholm. Had to go PHX to CLT to FRA to Stockholm (last leg on LH). Would be so much easier to go nonstop from PHX to FRA and then on to Stockholm. Just a thought.

Last thought - if I was the CEO of US I would add 3-5 rows of premium economy to all US flights to Europe. Pitch the seats at 38" and upgrade the soft product slightly. Charge a small premium to Y passengers and toss a bone to all elites that miss the Envoy upgrade. My gestalt is that it would add to the revenue stream and create much good will and enhance loyalty. IMHO.

Curious what you guys think.

3Cforme

There are one-stop options between PHX and Stockholm:

PHX-EWR-ARN or PHX-ORD-ARN (*A, even)

Somewhat less time efficient, PHX-JFK-ARN on Delta

More broadly, the proximity of PHX to LAX and its vast offering of international flights probably inhibits some routes that PHX could otherwise support.

FlyIgglesFly

For me, if I had the choice to connect at LAX/LAS/SFO/DEN and head to almost any European destination on a European carrier, with IFE, of driect from PHX on one of those 767-200s, I'd connect through on eof those other hubs everytime. I don't think US has the product to compete there. Maybe with better aircraft and new deliveries, yes, but I would choose LH/LX etc from a west coast city everytime.

FlightNurse

I have asked this question before, since PHX is the hometown airport, one would think PHX would get a NON-STOP european route.. But it comes down to aircraft, I think the A330 just have enough range to make PHX-London, also people have stated there isn't much traffic for US to fly to Europe from PHX. But why not do a PHX-PHL-Europe route on a A330 with just a stop in PHL, throw PHX a bone at least..

AZ Travels the World

No, apparently it can't. US management has said multiple times that they have not had the aircraft with sufficient range for PHX-Europe non-stop. That's beginning to change with some of the new aircraft they're now taking, so I would expect long-haul international non-stops from PHX (perhaps even to Asia first), to be receiving more consideration.

Reportedly, the BA flight is only a marginal performer for BA. It's their low-yield aircraft (smallest ratio of premium to economy seats). Given that it's the premium seats that make the true money for BA on a long-haul route, PHX is not considered a particularly good one, even if the loads are consistently strong. In other words, the plane is just full of economy passengers paying as little as possible.


And if you were the CEO, it sounds as though we would all like you -- certainly more than most of us elites like the current one.

Oddly enough, management of US doesn't seem to think this way. They seem to have proven to themselves that fostering loyalty by elite members is only profitable to a certain point. They tend to not offer elite members much more than they feel they absolutely have to, in order to remain competitive. (And, in fact, they squeeze them, if they think they can get away with it.) They seem to believe that it's all about the domestic upgrades for elite members, so that's where they've put their money -- on a mediocre first class cabin that's mostly filled with complimentary upgrades. They seem to believe that this is all we really care about and that anything they offer over-and-above it, is an unnecessary expense.

Personally, I think there are a lot of things they could do to enhance the travel experience for what could be a much more profitable group of customers -- if they actually focused on them. But these are accountants running the business and they run it by spreadsheet. They appear to judge everything by near-term profit. Profitability stemming from loyalty, when you've not done much to cultivate it (and in fact, have done the opposite), is impossible to calculate in short-term profit terms.

Perhaps (though I'm not holding my breath), if they are able to continue to stabilize the business with profits over an extended period of time, and assuming they don't merge with American in the meantime, they will eventually realize that they are missing the loyalty-driven profitability that their competitors enjoy, and will begin to rethink some of their elite-unfriendly policies.

perseus11

It's tough to lift out of PHX, especially in the Summer heat. That is likely why BA uses a 744, instead of their more reasonable 772. A US 767-200 has a practical (acceptable loads) trans-atlantic maximum range out of PHL of about 4000nm. Westbound, because of trans-atlantic upper air environmental issues, even that range may be reduced and en-route fueling is sometimes required. PHL-ATH is a prime example of overextending the US 767 and likely requires reducing optimum loads (cargo and/or passengers) to achieve the flight. The reason for the restricted range is that the aircraft was purchased from Boeing with lower than standard Maximum takeoff loading (MTOW) certification to save $ (landing fees, etc.). The US 330-300s have essentially the same range issues as the 767s because of their engine generation - they are the earliest type and underpowered.

Because of the PHX lift issues and the Atlantic crossing environment, neither the US 767-200 or US 333 would be suitable for PHX-FRA/LHR non-stop. However, a 330-200 with the new HGW option would likely not be a problem - if in fact US has ordered this option for the 2011 deliveries and plans to retrofit the already delivered 7. PHX-NRT and/or PHL-NRT would also probably be easily doable routes with the 332HGW. A potential problem with US offering a PHX-LHR flight (with a 332) is the slot pair cost versus the expected year round flight yields - and would BA discontinue their service - at the displeasure of the local business community. PHX-FRA would probably be a better option because of *Alliance connectivity on both ends. As far as same plane one-stop PHX-PHL-LHR/FRA service on a 333 or 767. That would certainly work, but the question surfaces as to whether it would require 2 aircraft dedicated to the route and (whether 1 or 2), would it still support a financially viable long haul aircraft rotation.

FlightNurse

BA flew their 772 out of PHX and then switched back to the 744, I have been told the 744 holds more cargo then the 772, and the BA flights goes out full in the cargo department, usually produce from AZ.

As I stated earlier, why wont US have a PHX-PHL-Europe flight, on a 762 or A332 give the PHX traveler a nice ride and a quicker way to Europe then to transfer at either PHL or CLT.

AZ Travels the World

Because it is too far to do a turn to PHX and make it back out on a transatlantic flight the same day. Those airplanes come from Europe to PHL or CLT, then turn around and go back. If they continued on to PHX, they wouldn't be able to make the turn that day, essentially committing a widebody to a far less profitable domestic route.

US doesn't have enough widebodies to spare on something like this -- unlike say UA, which has many more of them, and many more international routes. For US, it would cost them a Europe flight.

blug

I would choose a US 332 over LH 744 in Y any single day.

blug

I don't usually fly US and I'm not defending US, but IMHO their award chart alone is the best benefit of any frequent flyer program in the world. You can't get much better than that.

PHL

Lufthansa operated a flight to FRA and dropped it due to poor performance. BA doesn't even run it 7 days a week. It's doubtful US would do much better. The O&D traffic isn't there like it is in PHL, and there wouldn't be as many connections either.

FlyIgglesFly

I'll give you that, but only the 744 vs the 332. LH 333, 343, and 346 and all better than US in coach IMHO, much better than the 762. Once LH gets deep into the retrofit process for the 744 with IFE, then I say go LH.

cwe84

Not to mention how they would crew the flights. Trips would have to be East crews. A trip would probably work something like CLT-FRA/LGW-PHX-FRA/LGW-CLT or dead head them to and from PHX (meaning fewer revenue seats, plus hotel rooms and DH pay). Also there wouldn't be any quick access to reserve crews.

AirShuttle6162

PHX is and always has been an overly leisure market based off of tourism in Arizona..there isnt enough big business here to lure in NS overseas flights. Sure flights are generally full out of PHX but most of the flights are low yield flights, and thats true for pretty much all destinations in and out of PHX. Also with LAX and SFO in close proximity it doesnt make alot of finanicial sense to have a nonstop here when you can just connect at LAX,SFO or out east at PHL,CLT,JFK,etc depending on the carrier.

FlightNurse

Lots of Europeans come to PHX for holiday, wouldn't it make sense to throw its hometown airport a european route???