Lufthansa may reinstate PHX-FRA
 

Now that America West is USAirways and it in the star alliance, Lufthansa is seeking to reinstate PHX-FRA service. :)

Lufthansa seeks Valley service

Now if we can only get ANA to fly to Tokyo from Phoenix. :p

Why wouldn't US Airways start FRA -PHX and PHX - NRT service themselves? A couple more A330's shouldn't be too hard to get. Could certainly be a huge step up the international ladder. Just a thought. :)

The A333 doesn't have the range for either of those routes.

Sorry Murphy. You are incorrect on this one. The A333 has a range of 5650 Nautical miles with a typical load of 295 pax. and cargo (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...formance.html). US Airways' A330 config. has even less pax. capabilities due to the enhanced Envoy product (266 total pax.). Furthermore, there is no place in the continental US that is further than 5650 nm (approx. 6400 miles) from any European airport which is served by US Airways. PHX - NRT is only about 5600 miles and so very easily within nonstop reach. :)

You might want to write to Doug Parker, the CEO of US Airways and let him know this. He is the one who has said that no current aircraft in the US fleet has the range for Europe service ex-PHX or LAS and that they're looking to add that capability down the road with delivery of the new A350s.

Ending the Rumors
 

Hopefully, Lufthansa consideration to return to PHX because of the merger ends the rumors that US may be kicked out of the *A.

Where are these rumors coming from? I have seen a number of posts like this, but none of them were based on anything other than total speculation. I certainly have never heard US management ever talk in terms other than *A being very important to the merged business.

Not sure I would say that PHX-NRT is easily reachable... 5650 range vs 5600 distance even with less weight on board because of less pax. Not many places to refill along the way. Strong winds could cause problems especially during the winter. You also need slots at NRT which are hard to come by. UAL has more than enough flights to NRT from SFO, LAX, SEA, HNL, ORD, and JFK for good code share options with US. Wouldn't make sense for US to make an investment for 1 flight to NRT when its STAR partners offer so much connectivity.

This "rumor" will persist as long as US' membership depends on the whims of UA.

It would be somewhat funny to see US kicked out after they broke off their parthership with NW,NA, and BA.

.... which is another rumor. UA does not "own" Star, nor do they determine alone who's in and who's out....

No, I'm not wrong. Aircraft ranges are tricky things, with lots of factors. Air Canada's A333 has a range of 5635 statute miles. PHX-FRA is 5637 statute miles. I can't find the figures for US's A333, but they're similar to AC's. PHX and NRT are both out of reach.

The A330-200 has a range of 6400nm at max weight. Perhaps those A330-200 orders could be sped up if it's longer range that US seeks. Parker might be right in saying that none of the aircraft have the range for those longer trips once you factor in the things like seasonal winds, specific configuration (seats, weight, fuel, cargo, etc.). The numbers given on Airbus' site are best case scenarios and don't take into consideration options and configurations each airline chooses.

:rolleyes:

I never said UA owned Star.

US's membership in Star is dependent on the approval of UA.

"US Airways is currently a Star Alliance member, including reciprocal frequent flyer programs with 15 airlines around the world. Their continued participation in the Star Alliance is dependent upon its domestic code-share relationship with United Airlines. The proposed merger would need to be approved by United as a modification to the terms of the United/US Airways code-share agreement for the purpose of being a member of the Star Alliance."

How will this transaction affect current code-shares for AWA and US Airways?

With PHX and LAS being hot (and high?), it will suck the performance right out of any aircraft, so you'll need a good cushion on your range.

The range is only affected because the weight has to be altered in cases where the runway isn't long enough to achieve take off speed during hot days. If that weight is not reduced in the form of pax or cargo, then it has to be fuel, which translates to range reduction.

The only real problem with hot airports(and high, like DEN) is actual take off or landing performance.

Heat simply raises the density altitude, which makes the air thinner than standard, which means the aircraft must use up more runway to gain the same indicated airspeed before reaching liftoff speed. A 100 degree day in Denver, already at 5000 feet above sea level, makes it the equivalent of being at 9000 feet at normal conditions. This is why you are, in fact, moving along the ground much faster when taking off/landing at these airports. The plane has to move faster to achieve the necessary indicated airspeed since it's less dense than at sea level (like PHL, JFK, BWI, etc.)

Las Vegas' longest runway is 14,510 feet long, which should suffice for most heavily loaded aircraft on hot days. PHX, by comparison, has a max length of 11,489 feet, which is more in line with most other major airline airports. That would be a constraint on long haul departures (fully loaded) on hot days.

Denver Intl, built brand new in the middle of nowhere 13 years ago, was able to incorporate a 16,000 foot runway for those days where the temps are high.

Sorry for the digression, but I eat this stuff up. Density Altitude has gotten a lot of general aviation pilots killed when flying in/out of high/hot airports because they were used to sea level airports and denser air.

All that being said, a fully loaded A330-200 might be pushing its limits in PHX on hot days.

Look at BA's PHX schedule
 

That evening departure isn't by accident or even driven by desired flight times.

It's because cooler air makes getting a 747 out of PHX easier.

Well, that and the fact that evening departures will get you to Europe in the morning/early afternoon. If they left in the daytime from PHX, they'd arrive in the wee hours of the morning.

But they own US on this score. I believe the way Star does it is that the first airline from a given country in Star gets to approve or reject any subsequent airlines from that country in Star.

So, in short, if UA wants US out of Star, US is out of Star.

I agree that the Airbus maximum range is probably a best possible number. Fuel reserves for alternates, holds, and unfavorable winds will eat into that.

For trans-Pacific routes, ETOPS certification comes into play. (This restricts the range twin jets can get from an alternate airport.) Without an enhanced rating like the 777, the 330 probably can't be used trans-Pacific.