MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, RR: 73 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
Brazilian newspaper Gazeta Mercantil is reporting AA may reverse their decission to suspend service to Belo Horizonte. The local state government is offering up to US$1M in subsidies and lowered airport fees for American to remain. They currently offer daily 777-200ER service to Sao Paulo, connecting to their Dallas, Miami, and New York City flights. The flight has traditionally relied on cargo to remain profitable (hence, it uses a 777), but cargo has dropped off significantly as of late, which is why the destination is being suspended. Another reason is that AA is unable to serve the city non-stop from Miami becuase of the strict and ancient US-Brazil treaty. We'll have to see what happens...the proposal will be presented within three weeks.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
If Brazil wants the flight so bad, any chance they will renegotiate the treaty (of course, that could take years).
I often wondered why AA's flights to Belo Horizonte connected through GRU; I didn't know if it was regulatory or if there simply wasn't enough traffic to justify a separate nonstop.
Miaskies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1335 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
Very interesting in deed! MAH...you think maybe they can pull a non stop flight out of MIA with a 762ER rather than 777 via GRU?
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
I often wondered why AA's flights to Belo Horizonte connected through GRU; I didn't know if it was regulatory or if there simply wasn't enough traffic to justify a separate nonstop.
There is not enough traffic to justify a daily non-stop; they can justify a non-stop three times a week. Though it is still a low-yielding market, and profits will depend on cargo.
The 777 can carry more of that, and a tag-on can do it daily, so it made more sense to have a daily 777 tag-on to increase cargo yield than three weekly 763s. Though as cargo yield dropped off, making the flight three times a week non-stop from Miami become more justified, as it would help increase passenger yield.
you think maybe they can pull a non stop flight out of MIA with a 762ER rather than 777 via GRU?
If Brazil loosened up with their air treaty, yes, I think they could pull it off (with a 763, since the low-density 762s are reserved for trans-cons and Bermuda).
AA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
What about an A300 with its beastly cargo capacity?
Miaskies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1335 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
I think the A300 might be too big for this route, don't you think?
cargo wise great...but passenger wise?
Miaskies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1335 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
Yes the AA AB6's carry more PAX. Than AA's 777. Remember the configuration of these aircraft are quite different. The A300's have a basic first/business class configuration thus allowing for more economy. While the 777 has the "flagship suites" in first class and nicer business class which require more space; thus reducing the total number of economy seats available.
That is my take on it and seems logical to me! Anyone else have any insight?
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, RR: 73 Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
One more reason that AA had to suspend the flight and it became unprofitable as of late was fuel costs. With fuel prices the way they are right now, it was extremely expensive to fill up a 777 on a short hop between GRU and CNF, which takes less than one hour takeoff to touchdown. And the 777s take off heavy...usually with a full cargo load and the average passenger load factor was a high 86%.
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined Aug 2004, 2516 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
