Sounds like OneJet raised $10 million locally?

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... es-10.html

Runway28L wrote:

And oddly enough, FR24 is showing a B739 scheduled for tomorrow on IAH-PIT (UA378). Wonder if this is a weekend-only thing until June 7th...?

Seems to be just a one-off flight, the schedules show just United Express operating up until June.

Runway28L wrote:

SFO seems to be also resuming tonight.

Here's hoping it's actually going to be year-round this time.

DL announced today CLE - SLC. Seems SLC and CLE getting more attention from DL.

PIT wants it’s own electricity supply.
http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource ... 1803100045

OneJet ERJ routes from PIT published.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... arch-2018/

ConcourseZ wrote:

PIT wants it’s own electricity supply.
http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource ... 1803100045

"The so-called microgrid would be fueled by natural gas and might also include solar power."

Solar power in a city that sees less sun than Seattle and London?

Ehhh, solar works all over. Germany generates nearly 8% of their power from solar at this point, and they're a cloudy country.

I used to live in Europe. There is solar all over Germany. Solar also charges batteries which are used when there is no sun. Solar works on cloudy days, too. Just slower.

AaronPGH wrote:

Sounds like OneJet raised $10 million locally?

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... es-10.html

"The placement was led by Mel Pirchesky, president of Shadyside-based Eagle Ventures Inc., who is a registered representative of Los Angeles-based Boustead Securities LLC."

I think OneJet is either on the verge of something much greater with some additional backing, or on the brink due to unreliable schedules, staffing, lack of an AOC, etc. This news makes me optimistic its the former.

flyPIT wrote:

AaronPGH wrote:

Sounds like OneJet raised $10 million locally?

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... es-10.html

"The placement was led by Mel Pirchesky, president of Shadyside-based Eagle Ventures Inc., who is a registered representative of Los Angeles-based Boustead Securities LLC."

I think OneJet is either on the verge of something much greater with some additional backing, or on the brink due to unreliable schedules, staffing, lack of an AOC, etc. This news makes me optimistic its the former.

From what I've read, this investment seems to be larger than the first round. Quick skimming of stuff showed an initial 8 million? Is that accurate?

N116JS in from Boeing Field Int'l. An Amazon visit, perhaps?

ConcourseZ wrote:

N116JS in from Boeing Field Int'l. An Amazon visit, perhaps?

Looks like it is owned by Falcon Point Aviation out of Oregon.

http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N116JS

"Sales push will improve Qatar Airways cargo stats, Pittsburgh airport CEO says"
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/13402703-74/sales-push-will-improve-qatar-airways-cargo-stats-pittsburgh-airport-ceo-says

Like some have said before: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1803130045

Cush wrote:

Like some have said before: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1803130045

Seems the reporter was also referencing comments from this group.

flyPIT wrote:

"Sales push will improve Qatar Airways cargo stats, Pittsburgh airport CEO says"
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/13402703-74/sales-push-will-improve-qatar-airways-cargo-stats-pittsburgh-airport-ceo-says

The lack of a sales force has indeed been a problem, coupled with a lack of available space on the aircraft. In addition to the new sales team PIT has also recently been allocated two more positions, increasing from 6 to 8. Currently the majority of outbound freight from PIT is on the heavy side which has helped to offset the small allocation of space. Together these two changes should definitely help the situation.

I've been looking at pricing for some Europe trips this summer and noticing that WOW is actually clocking in almost $200 higher than United out of PIT in July - like $550 each way, every day. I guess that means they're doing well?

This really reminds me of the Porter flights to YTZ. The airport and the city advertised PD at an absolute minimum until it was discovered that loads weren't good, then the advertising campaign for that flight ramped up. It was too little too late by then.

Hopefully QR Cargo doesn't have a similar fate.

In the case of Porter the timing of the flights did nothing to help their cause. When they cut down to 1 daily flight it was poorly timed in the mid afternoon and offered a very limited number of connecting options to the rest of the PD network, primarily Montreal and Ottawa. The flights were packed to the gills whenever there was a Penguin or Steeler game but otherwise they averaged 20-30 pax per flight. They lost most of the business traffic due to the flight times and limited connecting traffic. There simply wasn't enough VFR/tourist traffic to sustain it. IMHO they decided when they cut down to the one flight that it wasn't going to work and they just ran out the clock on the subsidies using an hour and a half of what would have been downtime for one aircraft where they had some slack in the schedule in the late afternoon.

ConcourseZ wrote:

Cush wrote:

Like some have said before: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1803130045

Seems the reporter was also referencing comments from this group.

Nice article from Mr. Belko, and I think Ms. Cassotis's response seemed very reasonable. However -

"Ms. Cassotis maintained the assertions [made by yours truly about twice crossing 14/32 to takeoff on 28C, and possible conflicting taxi route on the south airfield] assume the airport is not planning any other improvements to the airfield to mitigate such concerns in conjunction with the closing."

While that is true, if there are to be improvements to the airfield to mitigate these concerns, that cost would just seem to counter whatever savings they gain by closing 10R/28L?


One other item I haven't mentioned on this topic is that if 10R/28L is closed, that does not address that 10L/28R would then be next in line for a total reconstruction, which was last carried out in the mid 1980's. So that runway will be out for about 6 months or longer, leaving only the intersecting runway situation.

Interestingly, when they did that work in the 1980's, they kept the first 2,500' or so of 28R open and used it for commuter ops (DHC-6 Twin Otters, Shorts,330's, etc) while they reconstructed the rest of the runway. The 28R end was then done at a later time. You can see the difference in pavement surfaces on satellite images. Also during this time it was common to see close parallel visual approaches to 28L and C, much like we see at SFO.




Edit: WTAE picked up this story as well and just ran it on the 5:30 news.

Looks like a nice little improvement for LBE. http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/ ... ger-planes

Any idea why we had a Sierra B732 come in from PHL tonight? NCAA tournament charter?

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n467tw

Runway28L wrote:

Any idea why we had a Sierra B732 come in from PHL tonight? NCAA tournament charter?

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n467tw

Flight in quesiton: 7Z9512

The NCAA typically mandates ground transports within 350 miles from school to venue; Villanova is within that 350 mile radius, so it's highly unlikely that it's the Villanova basketball team. Plus, Ameristar (7Z) isn't one of the regular carriers that performs NCAA football/basketball charters (SY, LL, G4 and, once in a while, WN). Then again, nothing would surprise me anymore.

August '17 trans-Atlantic loads:

PIT-CDG 69%
PIT-FRA 66%
PIT-KEF 75%

CDG-PIT 82%
FRA-PIT 96%
KEF-PIT 80%

What's up with the wide gap between loads going in the different directions? Cause for alarm?

AaronPGH wrote:

What's up with the wide gap between loads going in the different directions? Cause for alarm?

I don't think its a cause for alarm; probably a matter of folks from the Pittsburgh point of sale returning home, at least on the two seasonal carriers. Especially with Condor which offers very limited interline connections beyond their own flights so the low loads going over does not surprise me considering they only had one return flight in Sept. It was the opposite story for Condor in June, when they had a 98% load factor on PIT-FRA.

Notice how year round WOW Air had loads much more evenly split between the two directions. This year when Condor has a much longer season I don't think the gap in loads will be as wide.

Editorial: "Keep the long runway: Preserve this asset for future airport growth"
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/03/15/Keep-the-long-runway-Preserve-this-asset-for-future-airport-growth/stories/201803310022

i agree.

Transtats/BTS released domestic passenger numbers for December 2017 yesterday. I downloaded data pertaining to PIT to gauge trends in passenger traffic.

Of the 54 domestic destinations served throughout 2017, 38 saw passenger numbers increase while 16 saw decreases.
However, of those 16 destinations, all but 4 (those being ATL, JFK, PIE and RDU) saw an increase between Nov '17 and Dec '17.

Increasing the most between 2016 and 2017 were:

1. MCO, +48,853 (+24.55%)
2. ORD, +36,570 (+12.46%)
3. LAS, +29,611 (+23.73%)
4. DFW, +26,359 (+17.53%)
5. BOS, +23,120 (+16.19%)

By contrast, these destinations decreased the most:

1. ATL, -15,436 (-3.54%)
2. PHX, -8,095 (-6.32%)
3. MDW, -7,773 (-4.51%)
4. CLT, -7,060 (-2.40%)
5. JFK, -3,603 (-5.26%)

19 destinations saw over 100,000 passengers flying in from PIT in 2017; that number was 16 at the end of 2016.

So even though more routes are being added, which will obviously boost traffic, it's encouraging to see that many of the existing routes are also seeing growth.

JamesRenard wrote:

Increasing the most between 2016 and 2017 were:

1. MCO, +48,853 (+24.55%)
2. ORD, +36,570 (+12.46%)
3. LAS, +29,611 (+23.73%)
4. DFW, +26,359 (+17.53%)
5. BOS, +23,120 (+16.19%)

By contrast, these destinations decreased the most:

1. ATL, -15,436 (-3.54%)
2. PHX, -8,095 (-6.32%)
3. MDW, -7,773 (-4.51%)
4. CLT, -7,060 (-2.40%)
5. JFK, -3,603 (-5.26%)

19 destinations saw over 100,000 passengers flying in from PIT in 2017; that number was 16 at the end of 2016.

So even though more routes are being added, which will obviously boost traffic, it's encouraging to see that many of the existing routes are also seeing growth.

Top 5 in growth do not surprise me one bit. MCO and LAS saw NK jump into the market and stimulate more demand. AA has also added some seats with 738s to DFW now and ORD getting mainline flights. BOS with DL back in the saddle and B6 adding a 6th daily flight.

The entire bottom list I don't know what to make of. Except for CLT as AA has been decreasing capacity on that route over the past 2 years it seems. But since all 5 are connecting hubs, maybe less people are connecting and more are (finally) choosing nonstops...? Which would be a good thing.

Runway28L wrote:

The entire bottom list I don't know what to make of. Except for CLT as AA has been decreasing capacity on that route over the past 2 years it seems. But since all 5 are connecting hubs, maybe less people are connecting and more are (finally) choosing nonstops...? Which would be a good thing.

My thoughts exactly. As more routes are added, it would make sense that connecting hub traffic would go down.

Runway28L wrote:

The entire bottom list I don't know what to make of. Except for CLT as AA has been decreasing capacity on that route over the past 2 years it seems. But since all 5 are connecting hubs, maybe less people are connecting and more are (finally) choosing nonstops...? Which would be a good thing.

Another possible reason for ATL losing so many passengers could be due to F9 flying there for a few months during 2016. After F9 cut the route, ATL didn't have a replacement for that service in 2017, whereas ORD (year-round mainline AA) and LAS (NK) did.

ConcourseZ wrote:

WN flight 440 from MDW arriving at 3:30 with a 737 Max 8. Haven't seen one of those yet. Can anyone get a picture of it?

It took me awhile, but there's finally one in the DB.

An unnamed Delta employee declared on another forum that Delta was planning for Fall 2018 on adding more non-stops from AMS, CDG, and LHR to what seemed to be described as "mid-sized" or "underserved" markets, and it leads me to think about a hypothetical PIT-AMS or PIT-LHR on Delta.

DL imo seems more likely than BA to be committed to such a thing as BA is typically really conservative with launching new USA routes. I still see year-round CDG (76W May-Oct, 75S Nov-Apr) as the most-likely option that DL would go with.

I imagine DL would be a carrier the ACAA would push hard for to regain that direct link to London.

Runway28L wrote:

An unnamed Delta employee declared on another forum that Delta was planning for Fall 2018 on adding more non-stops from AMS, CDG, and LHR to what seemed to be described as "mid-sized" or "underserved" markets, and it leads me to think about a hypothetical PIT-AMS or PIT-LHR on Delta.

DL imo seems more likely than BA to be committed to such a thing as BA is typically really conservative with launching new USA routes. I still see year-round CDG (76W May-Oct, 75S Nov-Apr) as the most-likely option that DL would go with.

I imagine DL would be a carrier the ACAA would push hard for to regain that direct link to London.

LHR has long been a priority for the ACAA and, if those comments on the other forum are accurate, then we could see PIT-LHR (I don't know if there's much of a need for PIT-AMS, but we've seen interesting things happen over the years).

I've noticed that the QR8144 cargo flight has been listed on FlightRadar24.com has "diverted to PIT" on what's listed as the ATL-LUX leg of the trip three times this month, the 4th, 8th and today (18th). Is that some sort of glitch or is there something strange going on with this flight? I was under the impression it was supposed to be QR8143 as DOH-LUX-ATL, then QR8144 as ATL-PIT-LUX-DOH.

Runway28L wrote:

An unnamed Delta employee declared on another forum that Delta was planning for Fall 2018 on adding more non-stops from AMS, CDG, and LHR to what seemed to be described as "mid-sized" or "underserved" markets, and it leads me to think about a hypothetical PIT-AMS or PIT-LHR on Delta.

DL imo seems more likely than BA to be committed to such a thing as BA is typically really conservative with launching new USA routes. I still see year-round CDG (76W May-Oct, 75S Nov-Apr) as the most-likely option that DL would go with.

I imagine DL would be a carrier the ACAA would push hard for to regain that direct link to London.

Not to be be negative here because I, too, am a resident of Pittsburgh and love it here, but why would any airline waste a valuable LHR slot by running a flight to PIT? The biggest plane we could probably fill across the pond would be a 752, which seems unlikely to compete with a widebody from any of the major hubs in the country.

AI126 wrote:

Not to be be negative here because I, too, am a resident of Pittsburgh and love it here, but why would any airline waste a valuable LHR slot by running a flight to PIT? The biggest plane we could probably fill across the pond would be a 752, which seems unlikely to compete with a widebody from any of the major hubs in the country.

PIT has 763s to CDG and FRA already.

AaronPGH wrote:

AI126 wrote:

Not to be be negative here because I, too, am a resident of Pittsburgh and love it here, but why would any airline waste a valuable LHR slot by running a flight to PIT? The biggest plane we could probably fill across the pond would be a 752, which seems unlikely to compete with a widebody from any of the major hubs in the country.

PIT has 763s to CDG and FRA already.

And the market to LHR would be way bigger than CDG regardless, it can definitely be done.

Runway28L wrote:

An unnamed Delta employee declared on another forum that Delta was planning for Fall 2018 on adding more non-stops from AMS, CDG, and LHR to what seemed to be described as "mid-sized" or "underserved" markets, and it leads me to think about a hypothetical PIT-AMS or PIT-LHR on Delta.

DL imo seems more likely than BA to be committed to such a thing as BA is typically really conservative with launching new USA routes. I still see year-round CDG (76W May-Oct, 75S Nov-Apr) as the most-likely option that DL would go with.

I imagine DL would be a carrier the ACAA would push hard for to regain that direct link to London.

Discussed in depth in this thread for reference: http://wwwm.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... +expansion

I have talked with the employee, and what he said was that DL "will take several years at least" to add these flights and build up these "focus cities" due to the delay of the CS100. He mentioned a few specific cities that could be next as well.

Lemieux wrote:

AaronPGH wrote:

AI126 wrote:

Not to be be negative here because I, too, am a resident of Pittsburgh and love it here, but why would any airline waste a valuable LHR slot by running a flight to PIT? The biggest plane we could probably fill across the pond would be a 752, which seems unlikely to compete with a widebody from any of the major hubs in the country.

PIT has 763s to CDG and FRA already.

And the market to LHR would be way bigger than CDG regardless, it can definitely be done.

CDG has plenty of connections though, LHR has much much less, meaning any flight to LHR would have to be virtually all O&D.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

I've noticed that the QR8144 cargo flight has been listed on FlightRadar24.com has "diverted to PIT" on what's listed as the ATL-LUX leg of the trip three times this month, the 4th, 8th and today (18th). Is that some sort of glitch or is there something strange going on with this flight? I was under the impression it was supposed to be QR8143 as DOH-LUX-ATL, then QR8144 as ATL-PIT-LUX-DOH.

This is indeed a "glitch".
QR8144 is scheduled and always operates ATL-PIT-LUX-DOH.

DL would have onward connections via VS though, right?

AaronPGH wrote:

DL would have onward connections via VS though, right?

The addition of a 767 to LHR would greatly hurt the loads to CDG. Most people flying on the Paris flight are connecting on to different Europe cities. And although DL has much fewer connecting options from LHR. One of the popular cities to connect to from CDG is .... LHR. And I agree I don't think DL would use a London slot for a 757. I think London is only going to happen with either Nowegian to Gatwick or if Oneworld decides to bite.

AaronPGH wrote:

DL would have onward connections via VS though, right?

They would. But compared to AF or KL, options with VS would be very limited.

London would have to be more O&D driven whereas AMS would mostly be connection driven.

CDG is a mix of both which is why I still maintain the idea that year-round CDG is the best and most likely option DL would go with. It would just depend on if it's viable enough during the TATL slow period during winter.

Yeah, I guess it makes sense that CDG should also go year round and be performing well the whole time before DL would add anything else.

Personally I think that once CDG is year round with a 767 and say EI adds DUB...we are pretty close to the TATL the market can sustain for now.

pitbosflyer wrote:

Personally I think that once CDG is year round with a 767 and say EI adds DUB...we are pretty close to the TATL the market can sustain for now.

Although at that point, we would still not have a non-stop to the biggest TATL market at PIT...London.

I agree, that having any of the London airports would be ideal, preferably LHR. BA started AUS-LHR with a 787. It did so well, they changed to to a 777. A BA 787 PIT-LHR should work. I was very disappointed when DL cancelled the NW 787 orders. Always thought daily 787 PIT-CDG would do well with this aircraft.

Just an FYI to everyone commenting on connecting at LHR to VS, there would be next to no connecting traffic. It would be nearly 100% o/d. Almost all of Virgin Atlantic's flights are from the U.K. to the U.S. and the Caribbean with a few exceptions. They don't operate any intra-Europe flights. If someone needs to get to Johannesburg, Lagos or Delhi they're good but otherwise you're going to be connecting at CDG/FRA/KEF.

ConcourseZ wrote:

I agree, that having any of the London airports would be ideal, preferably LHR. BA started AUS-LHR with a 787. It did so well, they changed to to a 777. A BA 787 PIT-LHR should work. I was very disappointed when DL cancelled the NW 787 orders. Always thought daily 787 PIT-CDG would do well with this aircraft.

A PIT-LHR flight on BA or AA, could mean the (permanent) end of DL-CDG. Except for the initial financial incentives, DL has stuck with and essentially invested in PIT for all these years, when no one else would touch it - Trans-Atlantic. You can bet that if AA/BA started LHR, even with incentives, and it didn't perform well, they'd dump it after 1 or 2 years and use the aircraft on higher margin routes. If it was my call, the only carrier I'd consider for LHR would be DL and I'd apply what ever incentives were available to attain that service. Then at least a medium could be struck with DL for seasonal (or no) service to CDG. A basic problem with PIT-Europe year round service is the lack of connecting traffic to offset the Low Season (Low) O&D traffic patterns.