Date: 11 Jul 97 02:09:29 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.1411@ohare.Chicago.COM>, jfmezei <"jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam]> wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> With Singapore Airlines (along with American Airlines) as the most >> likely launch customer for the B777-200X, I think it would be quite >> appropriate for Boeing to launch the new derivative at the 1998 Asian >> Aerospace Show in Singapore next February. > >My image of American Airlines is not one of a long range route network. >(Not much in terms of Asia, and just short hops to europe on smallish >planes). Up to now, AA's interest in Asia seems to be limited to Japan only. However, AA has just announced that it will start codeshare services to Taipei via Vancouver with Canadian International. The new service is made possible because of the ealier open skies bilateral with Canada and the more recent one with Taiwan. AA also has codeshare services between Chicago and Singapore on 12 of SQ's 26 trans-Pacific flights out of LAX and SFO. I'm not sure about AA's long term plan for Asia, but the recent codeshare agreements do indicate AA has shown stronger commitment to the region than before. AA's interest in the B777-200X is an important factor in Boeing's shelving of the B777-100X. (If the report by Flight International is correct, AA is also interested in the B777-300X which doesn't make too much sense with AA's existing network.) Early last year, soon after having secured B777 orders from Singapore and Malaysia, Boeing ran an ad campaign in the Far East boasting the versatility of the B777 family (i.e., the -100X, -200, and -300) for Asian carriers. Even not too long ago, SQ still has expressed preference for the -100X. Now, Boeing is trying to convince SQ that the -100X is simply too small. >Would American really need a very long range airplane ? What routes >would it use them on ? (existing , new or "wishful thinking" routes ?) >From Dallas and Chicago (AA's major hubs), ultra-long-range planes are needed for destinations like Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila, etc. However, yields on non-Japanese trans-Pacific routes are traditionally low. Hong Kong may be a little bit better. Currently, UA is the only carrier with more than two daily flights between the US and HKG. With the new CLK airport, HKG should not be overlooked (but then again, DL did not make it the first time). Cathay is expected to make a major expansion to the US when the CLK airport opens next year. Thus, competition can be very tough in HKG. With a booming economy and a large Vietnamese popluation in the US, Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) should have a great potential. At this time, there is no direct link between the two countries. Airlines like CX, BR, CI, etc., are carrying a lot of six-freedom traffic between the US and Vietnam. Bangkok is underserved, so are Jakarta and Manila. The national airlines of the latter two citis have less than desirable image. Thus, they may offer some opportunities for the US carriers like AA. Well, just some random thoughts.