Info

badice.com ~ travel musings for the masses

Archive for

An OpEd in the December 12, 2014 Houston Chronicle by a United Airlines employee really has me scratching my head. In it, Mark Segaloff posits that Emirates’s status as an airline hinges on them being state owned and that they are able to hurt U.S. airlines because of their use of the Import/Export bank to finance their aircraft. He continues, stating that state-owned airlines cause domestic U.S. carriers to lose business and suffer, costing jobs. While my heart is with Mr. Segaloff, my head is not.

Emirates A380 - Mark Harkin

Emirates A380 – Mark Harkin

It is true that there has been some concern about state-owned airlines coming into the U.S. and hurting domestic carriers. Even European carriers have stated that the Middle East carriers pose a serious risk to their business in the region. Here’s the kicker though, the European carriers are really the only ones with skin in the game. They are the ones with multiple flights to multiple destinations in the Middle East. U.S. carriers fall well behind when it comes to service to places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Kuwait City and others. In fact, United could not make their Washington-Dulles to Doha, Qatar (with a stop in Dubai) route work, so they pulled that service.

Mr. Segaloff’s key point is that the Emirates flight will cost Houston jobs. I fail to see any facts in the article as to why that would happen. United offers a once daily flight to Dubai from Dulles. If they want to compete directly for those dollars from potential customers out of Houston, maybe start non-stop service? Maybe offer a product that is not being degraded by installing slimline seats, reducing seat pitch, and generally making the travel experience sub-par. I know that Mr. Segaloff would probably retort, “But they are a state-owned airline with all the money in the world to make service improvements.” to which I would simply give him a link to United making a record profit in Q3 of 2014. There seems to be some money for improvement there, yet United offers 2-4-2 seating in business class on the Dubai flight. No thanks, I would rather take the non-stop from Houston (avoiding Dulles) in 1-2-1 seating on the A380. United does offer a number of one-stop options to a number of Emirates destinations via their antitrust immune joint venture with carriers such as ANA and Lufthansa. Granted, the service standards are not the same as Emirates but there are options that make money for United and their partners.

Something that Mr. Segaloff fails to mention is that the Emirates service to Houston is not new, it is simply bigger now. Truth be told, Emirates used to offer two daily flights to Houston from Dubai and with those two flights they actually had more seats (532) flying to Dubai than they do now with the A380 (489/517 depending on version). Where were the complaints when Emirates was running that second flight?

There have been a number of announcements of service to Houston by carriers that are not state-owned and not from the Middle East but these seem to do little to upset employees. But from an airline business perspective, these new routes are the worrisome ones. Korean has started non-stop service to Seoul, which I had heard was off to a rocky start but is doing better now. ANA announced service to Tokyo, EVA has schedules loaded to Taipei, and there are rumors that British Airways wants to bring an A380 to Houston for one of their two flights a day. ANA and EVA are Star Alliance partners with United, but Korean brings a good product and a fantastic network in Asia. Where is the uproar against that?

The Import/Export Bank is actually a valid concern, especially when the money is not spent the way it was meant to be spent, helping a foreign company grow by buying American goods. However, I do not think Emirates has any problem letting that money fall away. In fact, that money is specifically for Boeing jets, not for the Airbus A380 that Emirates is bringing to Houston.

I think one place where Mr. Segaloff could apply is argument is to the new Emirates flight linking New York City with Milan, Italy. This is a city pair that is served by two U.S. carriers, Delta from JFK and United from Newark. Now you have a third foreign carrier on the route who is trying to bring down the prices but not having much success. But I do not think it’s a question of letting foreign carriers operate routes from the U.S. to their respective hubs but whether or not those foreign carriers should be allowed to operate so called “Fifth Freedom” routes like New York-Milan ad infinitum. A number of carriers do this but use that fifth freedom flight to connect to their hub at the end. Out of Houston, Singapore Airlines flies to Moscow and then onward to Singapore. They are allowed to sell tickets to Moscow or Singapore out of Houston and they fill their plane. It’s a win/win. But when do those flights become anti-competitive? That’s for the FAA and DOT to sort out.

It is one thing to cry wolf when there is a valid concern but to say that Emirates and their A380 is going to hurt Houston is simply fiction. If anything, the Emirates service is helping strengthen the Houston economy by offering one-stop service to places that were previously unreachable without 2 or more stops. It will also continue to keep prices relatively competitive, which is good for the consumer. Sure, United may not like that, but how many passengers are they really flying a day to Dubai? How many are they flying to Europe for Middle East connections? United has a choice to make, they can up their game and focus on becoming a world class international carrier or they can relegate themselves to a middle-tier domestic focused carrier with a product that just barely keeps up with the competition. That decision will dictate the fate of those jobs that Mr. Segaloff is concerned about, not a single Emirates A380 flight a day to Houston.

Just a few days ago it was was announced (speculated) that EVA Air would start service to Houston in June of 2015. On the heels of that, ANA, one of two major carriers in Japan, announced that they will start service to Houston from Tokyo-Narita starting in June of 2015.

ANA Boeing 777-300ER; JA736A@HKG;05.08.2012671eb

ANA 777-300ER By Aero Icarus

Airlineroute.net is reporting the following schedule, which matches what ANA announced in their press release:

NH174 Tokyo-Narita to Houston departing 11:15am arriving 09:30am [Daily]
NH173 Houston to Tokyo-Narita departing 11:20am arriving 03:20pm(+1 day) [Daily]

The service will start June 12, 2015.

Based on the seat distribution that ANA points out in their press release, 8 First Class, 52 Business Class, and 190 Economy Class seats, it looks like they will send the following 777-300ER configuration to Houston. Their economy class seating does have a premium economy section, but more importantly, they have 9-across in regular economy in what most would consider an odd seating arrangement, 2-4-3. This certainly does not mean that from time to time ANA won’t send one of their more denser configurations to Houston, but their schedule has a nicely fitted aircraft planned for the service.

ANA 777-300ER Configuration

The flight will more than likely use Terminal D, which at this point, really needs a makeover when it comes to lounge options and amenities for passengers. The terminal does not have a ton of food options and walking to Terminal E or C, where such options are more plentiful, is not a quick trip. There is also one lounge that is shared by Star Alliance carriers in Terminal D. It is windowless and the last time I was there it was packed to the gills. I have heard it has been expanded but have yet to see the improvements.

Given United’s recent removal of their second daily flight from Houston to Tokyo-Narita, this route announcement is a little surprising. United had trouble making money on the route using a 777-200ER, which is smaller than the plane ANA plans to use, and had trouble again when the service moved to a 787-8, an even smaller aircraft. Clearly United initially saw a need or they would not have started the second flight. So what prompted this shake up?

United and ANA are put of antitrust immunity joint venture across the Pacific. This allows them to share both revenue and risk on new routes. If one carrier thinks it can market a route better or run a route better, then the airlines discuss it and come to an agreement. In this case, I think ANA sat down with United and pointed out that the latter had dropped a number of services out of Tokyo-Narita, namely Bangkok, and that they, ANA, could do a better job of handling a second frequency to Houston while expanding the coverage in Asia. On the flip side, ANA can provide a lot of connecting traffic to United’s mid-morning departures out of IAH to places like Latin America and the southeast United States.

ANA touts this in their press release citing two route increases, Bangkok and Singapore and they include the following table pointing out southern Asia points that can reach the U.S. via Tokyo-Narita using this new service.

Asia-U.S. Network

That’s really the kicker. You can leave Singapore or Bangkok on one of the midnight flights to Tokyo and connect directly to a flight to Houston.

I have to believe that ANA feels that they can market the service better to south and southeast Asian cities better than United can, especially with United’s recent market retreat there. United simply does not have the presence it used to in Asia and if an Asian carrier can convince travelers to fly with them and share that revenue with United, I am sure United is happy to let them do it.

One tidbit not present in the press release is whether or not United will keep their Tokyo to Singapore service. The flight frequently goes out full and for flyers coming from the east coast of the U.S. it’s an easy connection. I can’t imagine United getting rid of the route, but then again, I didn’t see this ANA service to Houston as being possible, so anything could happen.

It is definitely great for Houston to have more international carriers coming into Terminal D. I want to see how it plays out as oil and gas prices continue to tumble. If the market in Houston contracts a little and consolidates, will all of these flights be sustainable? Only time will tell.

*EVA has now made an official announcement of the Taipei to Houston route, so no more speculation.

It appears as though the much rumored EVA Air Taipei to Houston non-stop service is now official. Well, it’s loaded into the schedule it seems.

Airlineroute.net is reporting that the flight will start on June 21, 2015 and will have the following schedule:

BR52 Taipei to Houston departing 10:00PM arriving 11:25PM [Sun, Tue, Wed, Fri]
BR51 Houston to Taipei departing 1:15AM arriving 5:55AM (+1 day) [Mon, Wed, Thu, Sat]

The actual first flight will be on June 19, 2015 and that flight will arrive at IAH at 5:45pm. My guess is that this flight is timed as a positioning flight to get the aircraft to Houston to operate a day later while still allowing daylight for the press and local officiants to give their speeches.

Taipei to Houston is just under 8,000 miles and will take 14 hours and 25 minutes. The reverse, Houston to Taipei, will clock in at 15 hours and 40 minutes due to winds.

As far as service goes, EVA’s product looks really nice with full lie-flat seats in business and a very decent looking economy product. Ben Schlappig has a number of trip reports on his blog at One Mile at a Time and they are worth a look if you are interested in the EVA product.

It is great to have more options to Asia out of Houston and I think this flight is timed perfectly with connections in Taipei to allow you to get just about anywhere in Asia easily. This will also bring a little more competition to United (even though they are Star Alliance members) and maybe we’ll see some fare sales to Asia!