Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts

Auf wiedersehen to Lufthansa's A300s

The last Lufthansa Airbus A300 flight flew earlier today, as the culmination of the airline's plans to phase out the 26-strong fleet. Lufthansa flight 3853, operated by aircraft D-AIAM, left Rome and arrived in Frankfurt shortly past 9:00am local time. The A300s have been a key part of Lufthansa's 'continental' fleet since 1987, and the airline used them extensively on inter-European routes. But the A300s got the axe as part of a cost-cutting plan that Lufthansa has implemented, which is expected to save €300 million ($420 million).
American Airlines, another big A300 operator, is also expected to retire the last of its A300s this year on August 24th. Those of you who have yet to fly on an A300 (myself included) might want to look at booking tickets before it's too late...

photo by eigjb on Flickr

US Airways CEO: Consolidation needed

It seems like a few years can't go by without US Airways CEO Doug Parker talking about a merger. Parker came over from America West Airlines when it merged with US Airways in 2005, and by the end of 2006 had made a hostile bid for Delta. That fell through pretty quickly, but didn't put an end to speculation that Parker would be interested in shopping his airline around or looking to combine it with another. Back in April 2008 Parker mentioned in a letter to employees that the airline would merge if the time was right, and yesterday, addressing the company's annual meeting in New York, he said that further consolidation was much needed in the airline industry.

"The industry continues to be far too fragmented... The result is far too many hubs across the nation and far too many seats competing for those same passengers," Parker said. He also stated that the Delta-Northwest merger was a good thing, since it went pretty far in helping to simplify the industry, but that it wasn't enough: the industry needs to get smaller if it wants to become profitable.

Who could US Airways potentially merge with? The first option that people seem to mention is United. The airlines tried to merge back in 2000, but this was rejected on antitrust grounds; United and US Airways talked last year about a merger once again, but this time United walked away. Nothing has been ruled out between the two airlines in the future, though. American could be a good fit for the airline, too. And even if US Airways doesn't end up merging, the fact remains that capacity needs to be further cut for airlines to stay afloat during these tough economic times.

photo by matt.hintsa from Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons

Air France and Delta finalize joint venture

A Boeing 777 in Air France's new livery. Photo courtesy Air France
Air France/KLM and Delta yesterday put the finishing touches on a $12 billion-a-year joint venture deal that would allow them to operate as a single carrier on North Atlantic routes. The pact extends a previous joint venture that KLM and Northwest have had since 1997. Air France merged with KLM in 2004, and Delta recently took over Northwest, allowing for a four-way alliance (all are already members of the SkyTeam alliance).

The deal is a revenue- and profit-sharing venture, and will have antitrust immunity (something that American and British Airways are seeking right now). It affects more than 200 daily transatlantic flights to over 400 destinations in Europe and North America, or around 27% of total trans-Atlantic capacity. It also allows them to more effectively combine operations. For example, if both Delta and Air France have a flight from New York to Paris, but both flights are only 1/3 full, they can be combined and flown on one aircraft. Marketing, pricing, and ticketing will also be shared, and these result in very impressive cost savings (about $150 million per airline).

As previously mentioned, American, Iberia and British Airways in the oneworld alliance and United, Lufthansa (and soon Continental) in the Star Alliance are working on similar deals. This means that airlines without an alliance affiliation - like Virgin Atlantic - might suffer as a result. And while this means that Air France and Delta are cooperating even more closely, they can't actually merge - under US law, a foreign company can't own more than 25% of a US airline, although this rule might end in the future.

Some slides from the Air France/Delta news conference in Paris on Wednesday:


AA/BA alliance a "monster monopoly"?

photo by Jun Seita
Virgin Atlantic president Richard Branson has called upon the US Department of Transportation to reject a proposed alliance between American Airlines, British Airways and three other airlines, claiming that it would form a "monster monopoly" that would pose a serious threat to the survival of rival airlines and would mark the end of "red-hot competition."

In an address to the National Press Club in Washington last week, Branson warned that a tie-up would be "disastrous" for consumers, and highlighted the fact that American and British Airways, combined with their oneworld alliance partners, would control almost half of the takeoff and landing slots at London Heathrow. "It doesn’t make sense to encourage even less competition by allowing dominant carriers to increase their stranglehold by setting prices together and agreeing schedules," he said. "...Our arguments are as strong today as they were on the previous two occasions when BA and AA tried to merge. Their dominance has grown even further between then and now."

Under the proposed alliance, American, British Airways, Finnair, Iberia, and Royal Jordanian Airlines would receive antitrust immunity on transatlantic flights - something that has already been granted by the DOT to carriers in the rival SkyTeam and Star alliances. "This permission or antitrust immunity has already been granted to 10 airlines in Star and six in SkyTeam - including the recently merged and now world's largest airline Delta," said an American spokesperson, in an email to AFP, adding that the proposed alliance was "simply seeking to level the playing field."

But Branson predictably did not agree with this logic, stating: "I understand that it is tempting for regulators to say, 'We’ve given dispensation to one alliance, we should do likewise for others' as they’ve done previously. But they must resist temptation. Each anti-trust application must be considered on its merits and it’s clear that the application for a merger between BA and AA must be rejected."

Branson has lobbied against proposed two AA/BA tie-ups in the past (1997 and 2001), both of which failed due to regulatory concerns. American's argument that 'it's only fair that we get this too' certainly has credit to it, but the sticking point is likely to be Heathrow - the AA/BA presence there is already enormous. The DOT has six months to issue a ruling, so we'll just have to wait and see if Branson is successful in putting down a proposed AA/BA alliance for a third time.

Last month, former American CEO Robert Crandall said that "any objective observer would have to look very hard to find a way in which alliances have benefited consumers." He also believes that "airline alliances have been far more beneficial for international airlines than for US carriers, and for that reason alone, I think they should be disallowed." Interestingly, he also noted that if Star Alliance and SkyTeam are allowed their own antitrust agreements, "AA-BA should be permitted as well."

Virgin America's top 10 requested cities

photo by Johnny Vulkan

Virgin America recently released a list of the ten cities that are most requested for new VA service. The survey is still up, so if you don't see your preferred route listed below, you can still vote.
  1. SFO- Chicago
  2. SFO- Honolulu
  3. SFO- Miami
  4. LAX- Miami
  5. SFO- Portland
  6. LAX- Chicago
  7. SFO- Phoenix
  8. JFK- Miami
  9. SFO- Denver
  10. LAX- Portland
Many of these routes are currently flown only by a few legacy carriers. The San Francisco - Chicago and Los Angeles - Chicago routes, for example, are currently flown only by United and American. JFK - Miami is flown only by American and Delta, and American has a monopoly on the San Francisco - Miami and Los Angeles - Miami routes. Even though Virgin America would certainly be taking a risk by flying into the fortress hubs of legacy carriers (United in Chicago, American in Miami, etc.), their relatively premium product would probably attract quite a few unsatisfied AA and UA customers. Those are the routes (LAX-MIA, SFO-ORD) that would be best for Virgin America to fly, especially as they would avoid head-to-head competition with other low cost carriers (i.e. Frontier on SFO-DEN).

American takes delivery of new 737s

photo by caribb
American Airlines has taken delivery of its first new planes since 2006 - seventy-six additional Boeing 737-800s. AA plans to use them to phase out out about a quarter of their MD-80 fleet, which are older, less efficient, and more prone to maintenance issues than the 737s. The new 737s will also carry more passengers (160) than the airline's previous 737s (sometimes as low as 134); this will be accomplished by a thinner divider between first class and coach and using thinner seats, which AA claims are more comfortable than the old ones. The galleys in coach class are also gone, since meals aren't served anymore in coach.

American is also going to base some of the new 737s out of its Chicago hub. Previously, it had kept almost all of its 737-800s flying out of its Dallas and Miami hubs, and kept the MD-80s at Chicago. But when the MD-80 faced serious mechanical issues last year, the airline was forced to scrub hundreds of flights at O'Hare. The introduction of 737s there should lower their reliance on a single aircraft type for the bulk of their domestic flying.

American's new deal with BA, Iberia

American Airlines, Iberia, and British Airways announced earlier today that they were forming a three-way alliance that would allow them to cooperate on flights between Europe and North America. Although the three airlines are already part of the oneworld alliance, the deal allows them to work more closely together and to cut costs. Not surprising, Virgin Atlantic's Richard Branson took a dim view of the deal, which he said would create a "monster monopoly".

The announcement comes at a time when other airlines are also seeking to link up: United, Continental, Air Canada and Lufthansa are working on a transatlantic alliance, similar to the AA/Iberia/BA one announced today.

American to retire A300

photo by Vidiot
American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey said earlier today that the airline's fleet of Airbus A300s, which were due to be retired by the end of 2012, will instead be phased out by the end of 2009. Right now, the type is based at either JFK or Miami (there still is a significant AA A300 presence in San Juan, but this has declined as AA has started to downsize operations there slightly) and flies mainly on routes to and from the Caribbean. The A300 is also a pretty versatile aircraft - it's used on AA's Miami - Orlando route three times a day.

It's unclear as to what American will replace the A300 with, but they might not choose to replace it at all. Instead of going for higher capacity, AA might just choose to have higher fares for fewer seats.

Continental rejects United as merger partner

photo by Drewski2112
Well, it was a bit of a surprise. After the linkup between Delta and Northwest a few weeks ago, many (myself included) expected to see continued industry consolidation. And a merger between United and Continental was seen as a likely one; rumors floating around pointed to an announcement as soon as this week. The merger would have created an airline that might rival Delta/Northwest in size, as well as international coverage (United's strong Asia presence would fit nicely with Continental's extensive European route network).

But last week, a little something occurred that made Continental think twice: United posted a $542 million loss for the first quarter of 2008. Even in the airline industry, a half billion dollar loss is pretty big, and it's a sign of an ailing airline. United's huge loss scared away Continental, which announced on Sunday night that it was abandoning merger talks with United.

The airline made the announcement in a letter to employees from CEO Larry Kellner and President Jeff Smisek. "We want you to know that our Board of Directors met today and has unanimously supported management’s recommendation that, in the current industry environment, the best course for Continental is to not merge with another airline at this time," it read... The Board very carefully considered all the risks and benefits of a merger with another airline, and determined that the risks of a merger at this time outweigh the potential rewards, as compared to Continental’s prospects on a standalone basis." The letter - which never identified United Airlines by name - went on to say that the airline will "continue to review potential alliances and our membership in SkyTeam. We are considering alternatives to SkyTeam as we carefully evaluate which major global alliance will be best for Continental over the long term."

Continental's decision is certainly a setback for United, which has been looking to merger for some time now. I don't think that the decision to not merge was arrived at easily, since there could have been some benefits from linking with United. But the folks over at Continental are betting that a merger with United, which is racking up heavy losses, could also drag them down as well. Even though Continental definitely wants a better Asian route network - and they could have obtained it through a merger with United - it might be able to get it another way. If United files for bankruptcy again, Continental might be able to grab the Asian routes by themselves, without having to deal with United's poor financial shape.

Continental has also reportedly been in talks about forming a three-way alliance with American Airlines and British Airways, although, from an anti-trust standpoint, this might be a bit difficult.
And as for United - well, this is certainly bad news. CEO Glenn Tilton tried to remain upbeat in a statement released Sunday night: "Our strategy is consistent. Consolidation is underway - ensuring you have the right partner is everything. We will pursue all options to ensure a strong, sustainable future for our airline and will not shy away from the tough choices necessary to create value for our shareholders and benefit our employees and customers." A United-US Airways merger might happen, but I don't know if it will do much good. Both airlines are still dealing with their respective trips to bankruptcy court, and I don't think that a merger between them will solve anything.

US Airways CEO mentions mergers

photo by caribb
In a letter sent to employees yesterday, US Airways CEO Doug Parker said that "airlines are going to have to make dramatic changes" if they want to survive. Although he said that he couldn't "comment on any specific discussions or transaction," he said that the media have suggested that US Airways is in merger talks with United and that American would make a good match as well. "Rest assured," said Parker, "if US Airways chooses to participate in any industry consolidation, we will do so because we believe it is the best interests of our employees and our airline."

Would US Airways be a good match for United, which has been seeking out merger partners? They already code-share (a benefit that the Delta/Northwest combination has), and US Airways has a strong presence in the Northeast and Southeast (two areas where United's route structure is weaker). But I don't see US Airways' route network as being as much of a plus for an airline like United, which needs more international routes. Of the six largest legacy carriers, US Airways has the smallest international route network. United might prefer a rumored merger with Continental to one with US Airways.

US Airways still has problems of its own, too, from its last merger (between US Airways and America West). And let's not forget that the last time United and US Airways tried to merge, it was rejected by the Justice Department on anti-trust grounds.

By the way, here's the original message sent out by Parker (posted on the US Aviation boards):

From: Corporate Communications
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Corporate Communications
Subject: USNews Now: An Important Message from CEO Doug Parker
Importance: High

An Important Message from CEO Doug Parker

April 16, 2008

Dear Fellow Employees,

With the recent news of a potential Delta/Northwest merger, analysts and media are speculating about the next potential combination. While we had hoped to remain on the sidelines of this speculation, today’s Wall Street Journal suggests we may be in merger talks with United and another article in the Dallas Morning News suggests we might make a good merger partner for American.

While I can’t comment on any specific discussions or transaction I certainly didn’t want you to hear this speculation without hearing directly from me about what this might mean for US Airways.

Most of you know my views on consolidation and those have not changed. Our industry is far too fragmented and consolidation, if done properly, could result in a much healthier industry which would be good for our employees, our customers and the communities we serve. Rest assured if US Airways chooses to participate in any industry consolidation, we will do so because we believe it is the best interests of our employees and our airline.

Despite all of the challenges of merging two airlines, we are a much stronger company today as a result of the merger of US Airways and America West. We posted the highest pre-tax margin of the big six airlines in 2006 and even with our operational challenges we posted the second highest pre-tax margin in 2007.

And we have an improving airline. We’ve made great strides with our operational improvement plan, including top three performances in on-time arrivals for three consecutive months. As we continue through 2008, we feel extremely good about our ability to continue to improve our operational performance relative to the industry.

But we can't ignore what's happening in the world around us. Oil has risen to over $113 per barrel and Wall Street is anticipating a recession that, if it happens, will lower all airline revenues. And the DL/NW combination potentially creates a formidable competitor. In that world, all airlines are going to have to make dramatic changes to their existing business models in order to be viable.

I know airline merger speculation can be distracting so for now, I encourage all of us to remain focused on running a great airline. Our work on the reliability, convenience and appearance initiatives continues and we are running an extremely reliable airline as a result. Whatever we do, we will always take great care to ensure the path we choose returns value to our shareholders and customers, and also provides long-term stability for our employees.

Thanks for all you do for our customers and keep up the great work.

American cancels more flights

photo by caribb
Only a few weeks after canceling hundreds of flights, American Airlines today canceled over 900 flights, affecting an estimated 100,000 travelers. The airline also canceled 460 flights on Tuesday and nearly 1,100 yesterday. The cancellations, which affected American's 300 MD-80s, are in response to an FAA directive involving the covers of wire bundles for the MD-80's fuel pump.

The problem was first identified back in 2006, and if American had taken steps to solve the problem immediately, the current problem would have been averted. But instead, the airline is being hit with this crisis at a time when fuel prices and a weak economy are affecting airlines in general. Because the cancellations are their fault, American is responsible for handing out $500 travel vouchers and hotel rooms for travelers - not to mention paying overtime for mechanics. And, perhaps even more significant, is future business that will be lost.

CEO Gerard Arpey apologized: "We have obviously failed to complete the airworthiness directive to the precise standards that the FAA requires, and I take full responsibility for that," he said. But it's little consolation to the travelers affected.

American, Delta inspect MD-80s

photo by Kevin Boydston
American Airlines yesterday announced that it was canceling 300 flights on Wednesday in order to inspect wiring covers in its 300-strong MD-80 fleet, with an American spokesperson calling the move an "abundance of caution" by the airline. Later in the day, Delta also said that it would voluntarily reinspect 117 of its MD-88s as well as 16 MD-90s. Delta said that as of last night, it had not found any problems, but the airline was nonetheless forced to cancel about 325 flights yesterday, with a few more following today.

Other airlines flying the MD-80 also reviewed their fleets as well: Allegiant Air said that it reviewed its 35 MD-80s without needed to cancel flights; a spokesperson for Alaska Airlines said that its 10-strong fleet of MD-80s operated "normally".

The checks come at a time when airlines are scrambling to comply with FAA audits and safety directives. Earlier in the month, the agency fined Southwest Airlines $10.2 million for flying 46 of its Boeing 737s without proper safety checks. American Eagle grounded 25 CRJs last week in order to double-check inspection papers on the hydraulic systems and rudders.

Delta-Northwest, United-Continental mergers soon?


The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a merger deal between Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines could happen as soon as next week. Talks between the two were previously strained as the senior management of both carriers disagreed over whom would keep high-ranking management positions, but they have since come to an agreement.

As a result of Delta and Northwest's merger potential, merger discussions between United Airlines and Continental Airlines have also reportedly "grown more serious," said the article. United has proposed a merger with Continental before and has been turned down, but if Delta and Northwest announce a deal, Continental could change its mind very quickly and agree to merge with United, which has been actively looking for a merger partner for some time now.

An interesting point in all of these merger talks is Northwest's so-called "golden share" in Continental. This is basically some preferred stock that allows Northwest to abort a merger between Continental and another carrier. If Northwest and Delta do merger, however, Continental has the option to acquire the "golden share" for $100. Continental would be able to get the stock even if the Northwest-Delta deal later falls through.

The mergers raise a lot of inevitable questions - what types of aircraft will the combined operations operate (what will happen to Northwest's A330s)? Which hubs will stay open and which will close or be downscaled (Memphis, Cincinnati, etc.)? What international routes will be dropped or added? It's most likely that the answers to these questions will be worked out before the merger is announced (after all, it would be pretty stupid to merge first and then tackle those problems). As always, lots of things could happen. American Airlines, which is being left out of all of the "merger madness" at present, could intervene somehow. Labor unions or antitrust regulators could always prevent these mergers from going through (and with the size of these airlines, any mergers would get a high amount of scrutiny from the antitrust folks).

British Airways launches OpenSkies


Although it’s no secret that British Airways has been looking to expand in the transatlantic market, the airline made an announcement yesterday that it is starting an “airline within an airline”. OpenSkies, as the new entity is called, will start flying in June with a single Boeing 757-200 from New York to either Paris or Brussels. Another 757 is planned to join the fleet later this year, with six aircraft in all by 2009. In a statement, Willie Walsh, BA CEO, said that "by naming the airline OpenSkies, we're celebrating the first major step in 60 years towards a liberalized US/EU aviation market which means we can fly between any US and EU destination”. Future cities will probably include Milan, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Madrid.

This is a smart move on BA’s part – the Open Skies agreement signed between the US and the EU would add a lot of pressure at BA’s London Heathrow hub. Currently, only United Airlines, American Airlines, BA, and Virgin Atlantic can fly from the US into Heathrow, but this is expected to change soon as more US carriers add the airport. It’s also a smart idea that British Airways decided to buck the “premium transatlantic” trend that pushed MaxJet into bankruptcy last month – OpenSkies will have business class, premium economy, and economy class (each with 24, 28 and 30 seats, respectively). But BA isn’t alone in this area – British carrier bmi, Delta Air Lines, and Air France/KLM are all expected to follow suit with Heathrow-US routes.

American to spin off Eagle

photo by caribb

American Airlines announced today that it will be spinning off its regional carrier American Eagle. In a press release earlier today, parent company AMR said that the spin off, which is expected to be completed by 2008, "is in the best interests of AMR and its shareholders". American Eagle could be spun off to AMR shareholders or to a third party (or in yet another way).

AMR went on to say that the spin off will allow American to focus on its mainline operations but still have access to a "cost-competitive regional feed". However, this depends upon how the spin off proceeds - if Eagle gets sold in parts (i.e., if one airline were to take its operations at Miami, and another airline were to take its operations at Chicago), then this might be a bit problematic.

A possible explanation for the spin off (besides the official corporate explanation) that I've seen comes down to finances. American Eagle uses a capacity purchase agreement with American Airlines. Eagle only makes money if it can operate for less than American Airlines pays it. But if Eagle's costs go up compared to other, similar carriers, the cut that American Airlines gives Eagle might have to go up to. It might be that AMR is looking for lower-cost regional feed in the future.

Since the event was only announced today, there are certainly going to be a lot more details announced in the future - stay tuned.

United's "urge to merge"


The world of airline mergers has been buzzing since last week's report that United Airlines and Delta Airlines were being pushed by Pardus Capital Management (which owns a sizable stake in both airlines) to merge. Delta CEO Richard Anderson stated that "there have been no talks with United regarding any type of consolidation transaction and there are no such ongoing discussions." In a press release, Delta said that it "will not speculate on possible airline consolidation".

It's no secret that United has been shopping around for a merger partner for some time. They haven't bought any new planes in quite some time, and United has relatively thin profit margins and high debt.

That said, rumors have been flying for the last few years that United would find a merger partner. These partners have included Continental (which already said no) and Northwest (which wouldn't work out because the two airlines both have strong Midwest hubs) - almost everyone except American (a United-American merger couldn't happen because the combined airline would be too big). The latest to crop up on the aviation forums involves jetBlue, since the two airlines have complementary fleets/networks. United would use jetBlue as an opportunity to become a player again at JFK, which would tie in nicely with international feed from Star Alliance carriers and make it more competitive on the East Coast. And a United-jetBlue merger would also put an end to the fight at Washington-Dulles between the two airlines.

But a United-jetBlue merger isn't too likely, and any merger wouldn't be a cure-all fix for United. Even though United may be holding out on buying new planes to attract merger partners, they're going to need to upgrade eventually to keep up with competitors. And employee-management relations aren't very good, either. Merger or no merger, United really needs to address these issues (and others) if it wants to remain a viable competitor in the industry.

Amazing 757 Landing

Another slow news day, so here's a video clip of an amazing landing of an American Airlines 757 at Tegucigalpa, Honduras:

Forbes: America's Worst Airlines

photo courtesy of tizzie

Forbes magazine recently released a list of the country's "Worst Airlines", based upon flight delays, lost bags and cancellations. ASA came in worst, although Forbes noted that air traffic control is more likely to delay flights with fewer passengers, and because ASA flies smaller jets, they're more prone to being delayed. And weather was also a factor - several storms at Dallas affected American Eagle's performance, and Comair, which has a large presence in the Northeast, is also affected by severe weather. (Note that Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Air aren't listed on the 'worst 10' - in fact, they're near the top for on-time performance, mostly due to a lack of severe weather.)
  1. Atlantic Southeast Airlines: On-time performance: 63.3% (worst), Baggage mishandling: 16.9 per 1,000 passengers (worst), Cancellations: 4.4% (second worst)
  2. Comair: On-time performance: 66.6% (second worst), Baggage mishandling: 11.9 per 1,000 passengers (third), Cancellations: 5.4% (worst)
  3. American Eagle: On-time performance: 69% (fourth worst), Baggage mishandling: 13.5 per 1,000 passengers (second), Cancellations: 4.4% (third)
  4. Mesa Airlines: On-time performance: 72.5% (seventh worst), Baggage mishandling: 10.1 per 1,000 passengers (fourth), Cancellations: 2.7% (sixth)
  5. ExpressJet Airlines: On-time performance: 73% (ninth worst), Baggage mishandling: 8.9 per 1,000 passengers (fifth), Cancellation rating: 3.4% (fourth)
  6. US Airways: On-time performance: 68.3% (third worst), Baggage mishandling: 8.6 per 1,000 passengers (seventh), Cancellations: 1.9% (ninth)
  7. American Airlines: On-time performance: 69.9% (fifth worst), Baggage mishandling: 5.8 per 1,000 passengers (11th), Cancellations: 2.0% (eighth)
  8. United Airlines: On-time performance: 72.4% (sixth worst), Baggage mishandling: 5.4 per 1,000 passengers (12th), Cancellations: 2.1% (seventh)
  9. Delta Airlines: On-time performance: 75% (fifth worst), Baggage mishandling: 6.6 per 1,000 passengers (eighth), Cancellations: 1.5% (13th)
  10. Alaska Airlines: On-time performance: 72.8% (eighth worst), Baggage mishandling: 6.6 per 1,000 passengers (ninth), Cancellations: 1.2% (15th)

US carriers look for more US-China routes

Several US airlines are pushing for more nonstop routes between the US and China, beginning in March 2009. And they're also going straight to the customer for help - most of them have designed separate websites highlighting their bids and are asking fliers to help out by signing petitions that will be presented to the Department of Transportation. Here are the airlines:
  • American Airlines filed an application on Monday to start nonstop Chicago O'Hare - Beijing service, to start on March 25, 2009. (This isn't the first time American has tried to do this - a few months ago it filed a similar petition but failed because it couldn't agree with its pilots on work rules for the rather long flights.)
  • Continental Airlines wants to fly between Newark and Shanghai starting on March 25, 2009.
  • Delta Air Lines applied for Atlanta-Beijing and Atlanta-Shanghai service.
  • MAXjet quietly filed for Seattle-Shanghai service, with a continuing flight from Seattle to Los Angeles.
  • Northwest Airlines wants to fly Detroit-Beijing and Detroit-Shanghai.
  • United Airlines is seeking San Francisco-Guangzhou service in 2008 and Los Angeles-Shanghai service in 2009.
  • US Airways has proposed flying between Philadelphia and Beijing.
The Department of Transportation can only allow one new airline to enter the US-China nonstop market each year. Currently, all of the above airlines except Delta, MAXjet and US Airways serve China nonstop - a fact that might give them a bit of a competitive edge. My prediction: the Continental and Delta proposals will pass, mostly because there isn't any New York area-Shanghai service and Atlanta/the southeastern US are also underserved when it comes to nonstop US-China flights. United Airlines will also probably get at least one of their routes, too.

Flights between US and China could double

A recent agreement between the US and Chinese governments lets the amount of flights flown by US carriers between the two countries to more than double. Right now, US carriers fly 10 daily flights to China, and the agreement allows for 13 more flights, with 1 new flight this year, another next year, four more in 2009, and seven more between 2010 and 2012.

This deal is significant because it will probably result in a tough race between US carriers like United, Northwest, American, Delta, and Continental. United and Northwest already have a pretty big presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and United was recently awarded the latest China route (Washington-Beijing). This provides other airlines like Delta and Continental, which want to enter the Chinese market, an opportunity to do so. 'Established' airlines, like United and Northwest, also have an opportunity to expand in the Asia-Pacific region, which is very profitable for both airlines. In a statement today, Northwest said it "applauds the U.S. Governments success in achieving a major liberalization of the U.S.-China market. The new agreement opens the door for important new routes including Detroit-Shanghai, Detroit-Beijing and Minneapolis/St. Paul-Shanghai which Northwest urgently wants to offer its customers." The government will decide which airlines will get the routes.