RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT

"Olivers" wrote ...
B. A big chunk of Iberia's load are pax with US destinations, for whom
direct connections to US cities would be almost impossible.


IB would not leave MIA, it would replace MIA for their connecting passengers
to _Central America_. So the flight to MIA doesn't disappear, they would
just increase flights (or capacity) to another hub for their
transferpassengers to Central America. It does not apply to passengers
connecting in MIA to AA (or other airlines) flights further into the US.
Greetz,

*replace hub*

"TWIV" wrote ...
Not the Karl Orff wrote:
Right now, AC is rportd to be doing quite well with its connecting
GRU-YYZ-NRT service

Canada requires transit visas, as well.


It isn't _all_ about requiring transit visas. It's that international
connecting passengers (with a non-US departure point and a non-US
destination) have to go through customs and twice (I think) through
security. Something that Canada (and most -if not all- European countries)
doesn't do.
On the transitvisas... they're not only expensive and hard to obtain,
they're also new for many countries which have been removed from the
visa-waiver and/or are subjected to being photographed and fingerprinted
upon arrival. Remember Brazil's reaction in doing the same with Americans
and getting 'the finger' from an AA-pilot?
Greetz,

* http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113744,00.html *

nobody wrote:
If you remove tourism, does Miami still generate that much demand for air
travel ?

It's the financial capital of Latin America.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
...
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.

We know that you like dictators, JF, just as long as they hate the EVIL BUSH
REGIME as much as you do. And just the inkling of damage to Bush's AMERIKA
gives you a stiffy. But the fact of the matter is airline hubs congregate in
areas where there are lots of monied passengers and a good infrastructure.
Brutal communist dictatorships like the one found in Cuba don't generate a
lot of cash for their citizens, JF. Nor do they generate efficient airport
operations because they are geared towards pleasing the Thug Dictator rather
than rewarding individual initiative and competence. Meanwhile, south
Florida is packed with millions of competent, incentivized people from Latin
America (and people who fled Cuba because the of the criminal Castro regime)
who have lots of cash to spend on travel. Iberia is staying and Miami, and
that bugs the **** out of you! Hehe!

Quantum Foam Guy wrote"

We know that you like dictators, JF, just as long as they hate the EVIL
BUSH
REGIME as much as you do. And just the inkling of damage to Bush's AMERIKA
gives you a stiffy. But the fact of the matter is airline hubs congregate
in
areas where there are lots of monied passengers and a good infrastructure.
Brutal communist dictatorships like the one found in Cuba don't generate a
lot of cash for their citizens, JF. Nor do they generate efficient airport
operations because they are geared towards pleasing the Thug Dictator
rather
than rewarding individual initiative and competence. Meanwhile, south
Florida is packed with millions of competent, incentivized people from
Latin
America (and people who fled Cuba because the of the criminal Castro
regime)
who have lots of cash to spend on travel. Iberia is staying and Miami, and
that bugs the **** out of you! Hehe!


Haw Haw Haw...!!!

--
Best
Greg

AJC wrote:
Again I have no idea what you are talking about. IB have not proposed
that they would leave MIA, rather that they would move their
international transit hub from there. IB are in a unique situation,
there is no suggestion of other airlines following.

There are other examples in the USA. Royal Air Maroc for instance dropped
their YUL-JFK-CAsablanca flights and now operates (at reduced frequencies and
reduced aircraft size) YUL-CAS and JFK-CAS as separate flights.

And it would be important to see the impact on Air NZ's AKL-LHR traffic. I
suspect that they would have lost a number of passengers for whom transiting
via LAX has become impossible (or too expensive). Remember that someone may be
a landed immigrant in England, but because they were born in a "bad country"
are required to get an expensive/cumbersome visa just to transit. So they have
to fly via asia. This is all the more important if someone is on a trip
lasting more than 90 days at which point, they may require either 2 visas or
an even more expensive one.

And remember that unless the USA changes its mind, starting October 2004 when
the USA will require visas for anyone without biometric passports, that will
start to make a huge difference because even britons will require an expensive
visa to transit vioa LAX on their way to NZ.

You should note that this will also impact American and other US airlines who
want to lure foreign travellers to transit via USA on their way to south
america. They may not be setup as well for this already, but it will get much
worse if the USA proceeds with its new requirements.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:46:50 -0600, Olivers
wrote:

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.


What is wrong with the runways that they couldn't cope with IB's 340s
and 320s but they can cope with the other aircraft including 747s that
fly in every day from Europe, Canada, and regional destinations? Again
what is lacking in the ATC facilities that they couldn't cope with a
few extra flights per day? Not having visited myself, I can appreciate
that the transit facilities may need some upgrading, but a simple
extension/rebuilding of the transit area would hardly be a major
construction project.


B. A big chunk of Iberia's load are pax with US destinations, for whom
direct connections to US cities would be almost impossible.


We are not talking about MIA or other US bound passengers. It would be
easy for IB to adjust the capacity on the MAD-MIA and MAD-HAV routes.

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.


No idea what you are trying to say here. What retaliation has there
been against the European, Canadian, and other airlines that fly in to
Cuba and the USA? What do you mean by 'a number of airlines'? We are
talking about Iberia. I don't know of another airline in a similar
position.


....Simply wait a while, and Fidel and much of Fidelismo will be history.


I don't see the relevance of that. As long as a future Cuban
government doesn't impose US style transit regulations, then what does
it matter what government is in power?



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?


Again I have no idea what you are talking about. IB have not proposed
that they would leave MIA, rather that they would move their
international transit hub from there. IB are in a unique situation,
there is no suggestion of other airlines following.

--==++AJC++==--

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:46:43 +0100, "Thur"
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.


There's a (long) thread about that on:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/1439576/
Greetz,

*some say yes, some say no*


Yep. This has been brewing for some time now, but of course from the
start of this year the situation got significantly worse. With large
numbers of their transit passengers having to be finger printed and
photographed, then collect their baggage and re-check it, just to step
from one plane to another, it must be an operational nightmare for IB.
--==++AJC++==--

Thur muttered....

"Olivers" wrote ...
B. A big chunk of Iberia's load are pax with US destinations, for
whom direct connections to US cities would be almost impossible.


IB would not leave MIA, it would replace MIA for their connecting
passengers to _Central America_. So the flight to MIA doesn't
disappear, they would just increase flights (or capacity) to another
hub for their transferpassengers to Central America. It does not apply
to passengers connecting in MIA to AA (or other airlines) flights
further into the US. Greetz,

*replace hub*

I'm sure that the moment in time that Iberia's cost analysts, presumably up
to a par with the best of number crunchers, determine that the line can
serve MIA and another "mini"hub such as HAV with some hope of profit,
Iberia will leap to do so....

Until then, here's a Permission Slip allowing JF to hold his breath until
the Magic Moment...

TMO

Olivers wrote:
I'm sure that the moment in time that Iberia's cost analysts, presumably up
to a par with the best of number crunchers, determine that the line can
serve MIA and another "mini"hub such as HAV with some hope of profit,
Iberia will leap to do so....

Do not forget upcoming changes to USA entry requirements. If those get
implemented, those accountants will ring the big red alarm right away.

It is also possible that IB may have certain contracts with MIA airport in
terms of gates, facilities, and until those lapse, cancellation charges would
be greater than cost savings form going to another hub outside the USA.