A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 26th, 2004, 05:07 PM
Not the Karl Orff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 10:12 AM
AJC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 10:25 AM
nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 03:08 PM
AJC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 05:40 PM
TWIV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Olivers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 07:38 PM
AJC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 07:46 PM
Thur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 08:39 PM
nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 27th, 2004, 08:46 PM
Olivers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.