Originally Posted by
saturn
Most long-haul routes (ex: south pacific) require 2 350s to open 1 route. And you need a spare at some ratio as well. But here are a few I could forsee over the next 5 years:
ICN - JFK/LAX/SLC/BOS
AMS - LAX/JFK+1/ATL+1/DTW+1
CDG - ATL+1/DTW+1/BOS+1/RDU/MCO/TPA
PKX - LAX/ATL/DTW
PVG - ATL/DTW/MSP/JFK
Could be a full daily add or even just bumping up a weekly by 3x. Pretty sexy list eh? That alone is a lot of jets.
Even more aggressive:
LAX-MEL
SIN - LAX or SEA
MNL-LAX or SEA
HKG - LAX or SEA
KIX - DTW (resume)
BOS - FRA/MAD/MXP
JFK - BOM/DEL/NBO
Partner with Etihad
AUH - ATL/JFK
MIA- BSB [Brasilia], FOR [Fortaleza], REC [Recife], MAO [Manaus] 😜 JK thats on LATAM NBs.
We also just partnered with Scandinavian a few months ago. Many seem to forget. Could see some additional flights to Copenhagen/Oslo/Stockholm.
https://
thepointsguy.com/news/scandinavian-airlines-sas-skyteam-timing-ceo-interview/
Point is, we could find a home for lots of jets. If economy tanks, we retire old jets & defer orders like UA does on their 350s or we did with our 787s.
Interesting list. I think if we had, say United's network planners these would probably all be in play. And before someone jumps in, NO I don't want to fly for United but I just don't see our network people being this aggressive. I think a lot of these routes make sense, though I dont think they all require a 350. Parternering with Etihad is an interesting concept that I, too wonder if the company has considered. The whole war against the ME3 was spearheaded by RA and in my opinion much ado about nothing. UA and AA have linked with EK and QR and Etihad seems like the most rational of the 3. I think you could add DTW-AUH to your list as well but any or all 3 would probably do well with connections. I would just want US doing that flying.