If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
Due to the U.S. transit visa requirements, Varig wants to drop its
GRU-LAX-NRT route in favour of GRU-ZRH-NRT. Howeverm it is in tussle with Japanese authorities for ZRH-GRU rights. Right now, AC is rportd to be doing quite well with its connecting GRU-YYZ-NRT service (which happens to be right on the great circle route). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:07:48 GMT, Not the Karl Orff
wrote: Due to the U.S. transit visa requirements, Varig wants to drop its GRU-LAX-NRT route in favour of GRU-ZRH-NRT. Howeverm it is in tussle with Japanese authorities for ZRH-GRU rights. Right now, AC is rportd to be doing quite well with its connecting GRU-YYZ-NRT service (which happens to be right on the great circle route). I read that there was an article in a Spanish paper saying that IB are once again looking at transferring their MIA hub to somewhere more passenger friendly, HAV has been mentioned several times. --==++AJC++==-- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
AJC wrote:
I read that there was an article in a Spanish paper saying that IB are once again looking at transferring their MIA hub to somewhere more passenger friendly, HAV has been mentioned several times. I think that airlines that have problems with USA will wait until November 4th before making serious decisions. I suspect that if the Bush regime stays, then airlines such as Iberia will make some moves. If the regime is ousted, I suspect there will be lots of pressure to intelligently reinstate the USA air system. Otherwise... Imagine if NZ and AC got together. AC could do SYD-YVR on a 340-500. NZ could do AKL-YVR. Then a code share YVR-LHR. Such a routing is actuually about 150nm shorter than via LAX and would avoid all the USA hassles. NZ could then put a smaller plane on a AKL-LAX only flight that would cater to USA traffic only. Another option is to move the "hub" from HNL to NAN. AC would do SYD-NAN-YVR, with NZ doing AKL-NAN. Now the Bush regime has supposedly decided to delay the oct-2004 implementation of biometric-passort-or-else-anal-probe rules since no country would be able to comply and the USA would have to do a hell of a lot of visa processing and anal probes. If they don't do it, then airlines such as NZ which rely on LAX for european traffic will be at a serious disadvantage since customers traveling between NZ and europe will be forced to pay the big time USA visa fees and deal with hassles of USA. NZ customers wanting to go to europe (or vice versa) will have to travel on singapore air via singapore. (star alliance). As for Iberia, it would make sense to hub at HAV since they could combine both the tourist flights with the south-america bound traffic. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:25:32 -0400, nobody wrote:
AJC wrote: I read that there was an article in a Spanish paper saying that IB are once again looking at transferring their MIA hub to somewhere more passenger friendly, HAV has been mentioned several times. I think that airlines that have problems with USA will wait until November 4th before making serious decisions. I suspect that if the Bush regime stays, then airlines such as Iberia will make some moves. If the regime is ousted, I suspect there will be lots of pressure to intelligently reinstate the USA air system. Otherwise... Imagine if NZ and AC got together. AC could do SYD-YVR on a 340-500. NZ could do AKL-YVR. Then a code share YVR-LHR. Such a routing is actuually about 150nm shorter than via LAX and would avoid all the USA hassles. NZ could then put a smaller plane on a AKL-LAX only flight that would cater to USA traffic only. Another option is to move the "hub" from HNL to NAN. AC would do SYD-NAN-YVR, with NZ doing AKL-NAN. Now the Bush regime has supposedly decided to delay the oct-2004 implementation of biometric-passort-or-else-anal-probe rules since no country would be able to comply and the USA would have to do a hell of a lot of visa processing and anal probes. If they don't do it, then airlines such as NZ which rely on LAX for european traffic will be at a serious disadvantage since customers traveling between NZ and europe will be forced to pay the big time USA visa fees and deal with hassles of USA. NZ customers wanting to go to europe (or vice versa) will have to travel on singapore air via singapore. (star alliance). I was speaking to NZ flight crews, and NZ ground staff at LAX when I was there in January, and they are having a hell of a time of it. It is taking the flight crews more than an hour to be processed, and the ground staff are having to see their passengers through what I heard described as third world country conditions. The NZ ground staff there were superb in trying to make the best of an appalling situation for their passengers. As for Iberia, it would make sense to hub at HAV since they could combine both the tourist flights with the south-america bound traffic. The problem for IB is that they have a lot of traffic with destination MIA so they would still need considerable capacity on that route, which is why they have stuck with it, but if things get too bad in the US then they will have no alternative than to seek a hub elsewhere. --==++AJC++==-- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
Not the Karl Orff wrote:
Due to the U.S. transit visa requirements, Varig wants to drop its GRU-LAX-NRT route in favour of GRU-ZRH-NRT. Howeverm it is in tussle with Japanese authorities for ZRH-GRU rights. Right now, AC is rportd to be doing quite well with its connecting GRU-YYZ-NRT service (which happens to be right on the great circle route). Canada requires transit visas, as well. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
AJC muttered....
The problem for IB is that they have a lot of traffic with destination MIA so they would still need considerable capacity on that route, which is why they have stuck with it, but if things get too bad in the US then they will have no alternative than to seek a hub elsewhere. Where elsewhere? Havana remains a few years away, but presents about the only real alternative. San Juan certainly doesn't. TMO |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:28:41 -0600, Olivers
wrote: AJC muttered.... The problem for IB is that they have a lot of traffic with destination MIA so they would still need considerable capacity on that route, which is why they have stuck with it, but if things get too bad in the US then they will have no alternative than to seek a hub elsewhere. Where elsewhere? Havana remains a few years away, but presents about the only real alternative. San Juan certainly doesn't. TMO I don't quite follow what you mean by HAV being a few years away. IB are talking about an alternative hub to link their MAD flights with their 320 feeders to Latin American destinations in the region. They need somewhere that offers standard international transit facilities, so presumably SJU being under US control would not be suitable, but if HAV could cope with the extra passenger numbers then that certainly would be an option. --==++AJC++==-- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
"AJC" wrote ...
I read that there was an article in a Spanish paper saying that IB are once again looking at transferring their MIA hub to somewhere more passenger friendly, HAV has been mentioned several times. There's a (long) thread about that on: http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/1439576/ Greetz, *some say yes, some say no* |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
Olivers wrote:
A. Without major upgrades to runways, ATC, and ground facilities, HAV simply couldn't cope. Is Iberia ready to pay for the improvements. What aircraft is HAV unable to handle today ? B. A big chunk of Iberia's load are pax with US destinations, for whom direct connections to US cities would be almost impossible. But if there are sufficient numbers of pax who do transit onwards, then it makes sense to move your hub to a place where transit costs you a lot less. Remember that the "southwest" effect does push airlines to reduce turn around time. But if the USA regime forces foreign aircraft to be down for 3 hours instead of 1, then that increases the cost of operating that flight, especially if it increses total return flight time to near/above 24 hours, at which point you nee dto bring in a 3rd aircraft into that schedule. C. Don't imagine that a number of airlines boosting their number of flights into HAV wouldn't be met with retaliation, from the subtle to the blatant, from US flag airlines and the ebil debbil gubmint. Why would there be retaliation ? The BUSH regime has sent a very clear message to foreign airlines: we don't want you transiting through the USA. So it should not be any surprise when airlines stop transiting through the USA, allowing the USA to further enclose itself in a little cocoon because it is scared of terrorism. MIA's not a hub because folks are entranced with it, but because it is a major population center in a region generating vast amounts of traffic in all directions. If you remove tourism, does Miami still generate that much demand for air travel ? If the Bush regime makes tourists obtain expensive and time consuming visas and makes the airport experience in the USA a continued hassle, then you'll find tourism numbers won't grow in Miami, unless the USA dollar is further devalued to compensate. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
AJC muttered....
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:28:41 -0600, Olivers wrote: AJC muttered.... The problem for IB is that they have a lot of traffic with destination MIA so they would still need considerable capacity on that route, which is why they have stuck with it, but if things get too bad in the US then they will have no alternative than to seek a hub elsewhere. Where elsewhere? Havana remains a few years away, but presents about the only real alternative. San Juan certainly doesn't. TMO I don't quite follow what you mean by HAV being a few years away. IB are talking about an alternative hub to link their MAD flights with their 320 feeders to Latin American destinations in the region. They need somewhere that offers standard international transit facilities, so presumably SJU being under US control would not be suitable, but if HAV could cope with the extra passenger numbers then that certainly would be an option. A. Without major upgrades to runways, ATC, and ground facilities, HAV simply couldn't cope. Is Iberia ready to pay for the improvements. B. A big chunk of Iberia's load are pax with US destinations, for whom direct connections to US cities would be almost impossible. C. Don't imagine that a number of airlines boosting their number of flights into HAV wouldn't be met with retaliation, from the subtle to the blatant, from US flag airlines and the ebil debbil gubmint. .....Simply wait a while, and Fidel and much of Fidelismo will be history. MIA's not a hub because folks are entranced with it, but because it is a major population center in a region generating vast amounts of traffic in all directions. Iberia might be able to afford leaving, but the number of airlines willing to follow? TMO |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AF apparently is getting KL cheap | Not the Karl Orff | Air travel | 2 | November 19th, 2003 08:41 PM |