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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
"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 * |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
"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! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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++==-- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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++==-- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RG apparently wants to drop GRU-LAX-NRT
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. |
|
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 07:41 PM |