Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA To End Service To Belo Horizonte, Brazil  
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

Sadly, Belo Horizonte will lose their only trans-continental carrier this fall, as American Airlines is pulling out on 30 September. They operated a daily 777-200ER service from Sao Paulo, that connected to their MIA/DFW/JFK flights.

The destination has been served since the mid/late-90s from both GRU and GIG at different times. The service cancelation is surprising, because it has usually been a healthy performer for AA because of cargo traffic (which is why it used a 777). Passenger loads were usually decent, although yield was never great. One of the main reasons AA is ending the service (other than the fact it is no longer making money) is that AA wants to eventually put an end to LatAm tag on services (for example, they are starting MIA-MVD non-stops in December and MIA-ASU is not far off), and the US/Brazil air treaty, which is very strict, won't allow AA to fly MIA-CNF without acquiring hard to get US-Brazil slots. In the future, if the US-Brazil air treaty is laxed, I could definitley imagine AA entering more Brazilian markets with 757s.

This is only the fourth LatAm destination (excluding Mexico) AA has dropped since starting service to the region. The others were Porto Alegre, Brazil (served in mid-1990s as tag-on flight from GRU; weak yield), Cuzco, Peru (served in 1998 as tag-on flight from LIM; they had problems with the local facilities), and Barranquilla, Colombia (a destination acquired from Eastern but dropped in April 2002 because the Colombian Aviation Authority would only allow AA to serve three Colombian cities, so they switched BAQ for MDE; AA would return in a heartbeat if they could).

It is one of three cities leaving the AA network this fall, joining Duluth, Minnesota and Lincoln, Nebraska.


a.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Oh, well. That's the way the cookie crumbles. The flight crews will be thrilled to only have to fly a 3 and a 1/2 day trip to GRU, instead of a 5-day with a turnaround to CNF on the 3rd day.

User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Do you think either JJ or RG would be interested in flying non-stop from CNF to the States? In other words, is there a market for that route?


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

It is use with one-stop in GRU for bound to DFW. I looked it up with their timetables with AA.

Regards


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Do you think either JJ or RG would be interested in flying non-stop from CNF to the States? In other words, is there a market for that route?


Yes, there is a market for the route. The yield is not that strong, but JJ/RG could pull it of 2-3x a week. Cargo yields alone make up for lack of passenger yields, CNF is a huge cargo market. RG has begun re-opening up long-hauls from secondary markets after cutting them all (except AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA-GIG) about a two years ago, so there is potential.



a.
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Let's see then which of the two decides to launch the route (hopefully it will happen). I guess JJ would likely route such a flight to MIA (or perhaps to DFW as a result of its codeshare with AA)... I don't know where RG would send such a flight to, but it would have to be a place where Star Alliance has a hub, don't you think?


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Let's see then which of the two decides to launch the route (hopefully it will happen). I guess JJ would likely route such a flight to MIA (or perhaps to DFW as a result of its codeshare with AA)... I don't know where RG would send such a flight to, but it would have to be a place where Star Alliance has a hub, don't you think?


Either or, they would send it to Miami, not Dallas or another hub. Miami has the O&D, the business ties, and the cargo traffic. It is really the only way a CNF-US flight would be profitable.

I would think Varig would operate the route. They have operated MIA-FOR/MAO/REC/BEL/SSA before the withdrawl of non-GRU long-haul flying canceled those routes, and MIA-GIG. Things are a little better now (still not great) and MIA-GIG is back. If they get into better financial shape in the future, others will return too.

TAM is now operating MIA-SSA, though it is partly subsidized by Salvador-area hotels.



a.
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Is that will still use with their flight on JJ service to SSA, correct? How is load was doing? Can you anyone to find out with those information about JJ is service from MIA-SSA nonstop?

Regards


User currently offlineLatinAviation From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1276 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2949 times:

Barranquilla, Colombia (a destination acquired from Eastern but dropped in April 2002 because the Colombian Aviation Authority would only allow AA to serve three Colombian cities, so they switched BAQ for MDE; AA would return in a heartbeat if they could).

Actually, Mark, I would disagree with you. AA dropped BQE before they picked up MDE. AA dropped BQE when they were retiring their 727-200 fleet. At the time, AV was operating the route with a 757 and the market was only ~150 pax day. MDE was decided long after BQE was dropped and, iirc, the frequencies were different.

Sadly, not long after AA pulled out of BQE their station manager, a long-time employee of AA and EA, passed away as well.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Actually, Mark, I would disagree with you. AA dropped BQE before they picked up MDE.

BAQ was dropped as a result of MDE. While there was a small stretch of time between the two (BAQ dropped 7 April 2002; MDE started 15 June 2002), BAQ was dropped because the CAA did not allow AA to serve both BAQ and MDE. AA perfered MDE...it is a bigger O&D market and has a lot more business traffic, as opposed to the VFR traffic that is dominate in BAQ. BAQ was going to be switched to a 738 before it was dropped. The delay between dropping the two destinations had to do with various issues...including aircraft scheduling (April-May is a slower travel period, which allows AA to put more aircraft into maintence), and the fact that June is a busier traffic month (and a better time to launch new routes). AA usually drops routes in September and April.



a.
User currently offlinePlaaneboy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

BAQ was dropped because the CAA did not allow AA to serve both BAQ and MDE.

Actually, latinaviation is correct. BAQ had been struggling for sometime before they pulled the plug on the route. With the local BAQMIA market so small and AV operating a 757 on the route, AA was getting squeezed on the route. It's highly unlikely that AA will return to BAQ anytime soon, with or without the approval of the Colombian government. It was simple economics that caused AA to pull out of BAQ.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17508 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Speaking of ending tags, is there any way to fly LPB-MIA nonstop? It's not really a tag but more of a roundabout with VVI.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

Speaking of ending tags, is there any way to fly LPB-MIA nonstop? It's not really a tag but more of a roundabout with VVI.

No, there isn't. An aircraft cannot fly LPB-MIA non-stop due to La Paz' altitude and runway length. If AA were to increase Bolivia service, it would be with another triangle MIA-VVI-LPB-MIA routing (or just MIA-VVI-MIA).



a.
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Exactly, Mark and this is one of direct of their service from MIA to Columbia flights and this is one of need more service to BAQ or something else with these city. It is largest Columbia market and it will there is something about more new flights anytime soon. It's not really have a new tag more new things.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Belo Horizonte will lose their only trans-continental carrier this fall

CNF-GRU ain't much of a transcon, wouldn't ya say?  Laugh out loud

That, and JJ/RG fly the route as well as others... not just AA.


User currently offlineAlitaliaORD From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

wait, dosnt CO fly to Belo Horizonte?


Joy To The World, All The Boys and Girls, Joy to the Fishes in the Deep Blue Sea, Joy to You and Me
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

wait, dosnt CO fly to Belo Horizonte?


No, they did until around 2001 or so. United also used to fly to Belo Horizonte, though, unlike AA and CO, they flew there non-stop, three times a week from MIA in the mid-90s. It was supported by cargo revenue.



a.
User currently offlinePbb152 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

wait, dosnt CO fly to Belo Horizonte?

CO dropped their Belo Horizonte tag about four years ago. I believe the service only lasted for a year or so.

Pete



User currently offlineLatinAviation From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1276 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

United also used to fly to Belo Horizonte, though, unlike AA and CO, they flew there non-stop, three times a week from MIA in the mid-90s. It was supported by cargo revenue.

It was operated with a 767-200ER and when it first started was more like 5x/week or daily. UA then dropped the non-stop and added a second flight to GRU, also with the 767-200ER, that continued to CNF.


User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

I totally disagree with some information given above that there is market in CNF to operate to US. If market is so good, why AA is leaving?
The reality is much different. CNF is a white elephant, with a very poor operation. AA positioned their aircraft in CNF for a lower rate than if kept aircraft in GRU. Of course with some pax on board and some cargo with a lower airport rate to position aircraft, should be attractive for some reason. But making money is another issue.
The loads of cargo may be good but rates applicable are not enough to save the leg nor pax loads.

There is no interest in TAM start to operate this route.

Regarding to TAM´s SSA operation, loads are very good not only southbound but northbound too and cargo is superb. TAM is making studies to implement a weekly cargo flight between MIA and SSA.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

. If market is so good, why AA is leaving?

Because AA has no US-Brazil slots available to attempt to fly the flight non-stop as they would like to. The flight had made AA plenty of money until recently.



a.
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

What is your source about making money? Of course a flight starting in CNF with a stop in GRU will make money. But the leg CNF itself sucks. There is no market in CNF to justify an international flight there.
I am here in Brazil and know this mrkt very weel to tell you all it is not a good market to justify an intl operation.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

What is your source about making money?

They are good sources, trust me. They made money at CNF until about the last 12 months. That's why CNF had survived all of AA's network cut backs in the past. AA wanted to make it a non-stop from MIA, but the strict bilateral, combined with aircraft scheduling, didn't make it possible. MVD is going non-stop in December, and ASU is tentatively set to go non-stop in June. They don't want to do many tag-ons anymore.

There is no market in CNF to justify an international flight there.


Yes there is. There is a huge cargo market. That is what has justified AA, CO, and UA in the past. There are enough passengers to fill a plane too, though they are low-yielding and don't fill premium cabins (F/C on AA's CNF flight usually left with 5 seats occupied, and that was on a good day). Sadly, the cargo market has dropped off lately, which is forcing AA to leave. They didn't operate a 777 to CNF for the hell of it, when they could have to a more profitable destination like ASU. They operated a 777 because of the cargo demand.



a.
User currently offlineEnoreFilho From Brazil, joined Jun 2004, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2495 times:

Let's say that AA cancelled its flights to CNF because economical reasons, as JJMNGR said. The State of Minas Gerais used to be a great immigration source to USA, and with the difficulties to have an american visa, the number of passengers is very low actually, even for tourism (let's go to Europe!!!! Smokin cool)


Member of the all mighty Canudos Air Force!!!!
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

It is incredible!!! People very far away from here wants to know about Brazilian market more than us, who lives here and work in the airline industry.

Let´s talk about cargo??? Good this is my stand on the sunshine...

AA is very well known in the cargo industry, for bad rates practise. Even when the market is full of cargo, AA insists in sell cargo for lower rates. They sell CNF to MIA for average USD1,00...the average cargo they handle in CNF is 02 lower deck positions plus 02 LD3, what means something about 7 tons. ONLY USD7.000,00 (average) from CNF to MIA. What is the cargo contribuition of the CNF leg till final destination considering this poor cargo yeld?

Come on!!!. Brazilian airport rates are exorbitant as it is a monopole, cargo and air tkts are being sold by AA for nothing and they are making money? No way buddy. No way.

US carriers are desperate for money and it is an urgt need to get out of the crisis, as so as many other carriers in the world. It is totally nonsense; if they are making money, they were not supposed to leave CNF...but fact is that they are leaving.

I can´t imagine that a company is going to close a station if they are making money. Nowadays, make money and cease operations? Only if they are crazy. As some insists AA is making money, automatically are calling them as nuts...giving up this very profitable route!!!




User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32785 posts, RR: 72
Reply 25, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

JJMNGR, did you not read my post before going all nuts?

As I said:

They made money at CNF until about the last 12 months. That's why CNF had survived all of AA's network cut backs in the past.

And...

Sadly, the cargo market has dropped off lately, which is forcing AA to leave.

Simply put, the money at CNF isn't flowing like it used to, and AA is dropping it.



a.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EWR To Belo Horizonte(Brazil)? posted Wed Jun 21 2000 04:00:26 by Neo
AA To End Service To Islip And Sioux Falls posted Sat Oct 2 2004 11:02:12 by MAH4546
Delta To End Service To Champaign/Urbana posted Sun Aug 13 2006 08:26:40 by MAH4546
US Airways To End Service To Four Cities From PIT! posted Sat Mar 25 2006 00:34:55 by CentPIT
AA & Taca To End Codeshare posted Fri Dec 16 2005 15:30:18 by PVD757
AA To End Mainline Service At PIT posted Fri Sep 16 2005 01:40:24 by N670UW
AA Consider Flights To NE Brazil posted Tue Jun 7 2005 18:40:19 by Hardiwv
Belo Horizonte Goes From PLU To CNF On March 13 posted Sun Mar 13 2005 04:41:46 by Incitatus
AA To END SJC-HNL/OGG posted Fri Mar 11 2005 23:19:01 by Aa777flyer
AA Likely To End Mrtc posted Fri Oct 8 2004 00:57:14 by Aa777flyer