Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rumor:AA To Start 2nd Daily JFK-EZE  
User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10306 times:

I haven't heard much about this, but a flight attendant colleague of mine who had a senior VP on a recent flight from FCO to JFK told me that AA is looking at a 2nd daily flight to EZE from JFK.

I know the flight does well, but nowhere near as well as JFK-GRU, so I was surprised to hear this. With the recent upgrading of JFK-EZE with a 772 for the coming winter season, I don't know what equipment would be used, most likely a 763. And when the 2nd flight would start up, I have no idea. I know AA would like another frequency on MIA-EZE. Any other AAers out there hear about this? I'd be thrilled if it were true. The average seniority of the F/As on this trip is around 30 years, and it would be nice if us "younger" folks (18 years' seniority) would be able to fly the trip.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10300 times:

they would need to get the rights first.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16877 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10300 times:

They must be looking at going after UAL's ORD-EZE route authority which UAL is suspending (again), if so I think AA has an up hill battle to convice the DOT that launching a second daily JFK-EZE is more beneficial to the flying public than awarding the authority to CO (EWR-EZE) or DL (JFK-EZE).


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

Quoting NYCAAer (Thread starter):
I know the flight does well, but nowhere near as well as JFK-GRU, so I was surprised to hear this. With the recent upgrading of JFK-EZE with a 772 for the coming winter season, I don't know what equipment would be used, most likely a 763. And when the 2nd flight would start up, I have no idea. I know AA would like another frequency on MIA-EZE. Any other AAers out there hear about this? I'd be thrilled if it were true. The average seniority of the F/As on this trip is around 30 years, and it would be nice if us "younger" folks (18 years' seniority) would be able to fly the trip.

I think DL stands more of a chance to start JFK-EZE rather than DOT letting AA start the 2nd daily JFK-EZE. What frequencies would AA use? ORD-EZE is seasonal but DOT, IIRC, has denied several times AA's, DL's requests to have the frequencies removed from UA. Now that CO is at stake, maybe there could be more pressure, but still, I highly doubt it will get anywhere.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD11junkie



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2926 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
They must be looking at going after UAL's ORD-EZE route authority which UAL is suspending (again), if so I think AA has an up hill battle to convice the DOT that launching a second daily JFK-EZE is more beneficial to the flying public than awarding the authority to CO (EWR-EZE) or DL (JFK-EZE).

Perhaps. But it's been rumored on A.net (so you know it must be true  Smile ) that if AA is able to wrangle another frequency to Argentina, they would launch MIA-COR....


User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10238 times:

I was shocked to hear a 2nd JFK-EZE was even being considered, because MIA is higher priority right now. Maybe the VP is mixed up- he is getting close to retirement  Wink

User currently offlineCHIFLYGUY From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10150 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 4):

Perhaps. But it's been rumored on A.net (so you know it must be true Smile ) that if AA is able to wrangle another frequency to Argentina, they would launch MIA-COR....

There are probably two considerations:

1. Which application would be most likely to be successful for them? MIA-COR, opening a new city, might be a better shot but ....

2. It needs to be balanced against speed to market. It would take a while to open a new station. This means they'd miss the peak travel season, and by next summer UA will probably try to show the flight as back on again for the coming winter, to keep the frequencies for themselves.

Argentine frequencies are very precious, the DOT shouldn't let UA squat on them IMO.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9968 times:

AFAIK, there are zero plans for this. If they do it, AA would need to apply for UA's ORD-EZE frequency. Delta will, without a doubt, apply for JFK-EZE, and win over any AA proposal. AA's only shot at adding a fifth flight to Argentina is proposing a Miami-Cordoba flight, an idea that has been floated around lately.

AA would love to be able to add a third daily MIA-EZE much more than a second daily JFK-EZE, but, of course, they can't. They've been wanting to do so for a few years now, having the flight operate as a daylight and not use any additional equipment.



a.
User currently offlineLVTMB From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9934 times:

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 5):
I was shocked to hear a 2nd JFK-EZE was even being considered, because MIA is higher priority right now.

AA currently has two daily 777 frequencies on the MIA-EZE-MIA run and, if I recall correctly, they were planning a third one -- maybe a day time flight. Regardless, AA's consideration of JFK-EZE-JFK might have been driven by the fact that AR is abandoning that route.

MB


User currently offlineAJMIA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9880 times:

IMHO before anything new to Argentina I bet we will see another MIA-GRU flight. EZE just got a big upgrade with JFK and MIA #1 going to 777.

With the daylight MIA-GRU flight changing to a eve departure and RG off the MIA radar for now, I bet AA is going to want to add back in another daylight flight at least for the high season... if the can get the authorization.

AJMIA



Lady it's a jet... not a kite.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9823 times:

Quoting AJMIA (Reply 9):
IMHO before anything new to Argentina I bet we will see another MIA-GRU flight. EZE just got a big upgrade with JFK and MIA #1 going to 777.

With the daylight MIA-GRU flight changing to a eve departure and RG off the MIA radar for now, I bet AA is going to want to add back in another daylight flight at least for the high season... if the can get the authorization.

Agreed.



a.
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8386 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the name of protecting AR the whole Argentine economy pays.

User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
In the name of protecting AR the whole Argentine economy pays.

WTF has that got to do with anything in this thread? And, what the f*ck are you saying?



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9682 times:

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 12):
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
In the name of protecting AR the whole Argentine economy pays.

WTF has that got to do with anything in this thread? And, what the f*ck are you saying?

Very simple. The Argentine government has a very restrictive air treaty with the United States. Now, I don't see how it helps AR. It could, but AR obviously doesn't take advantage of it with just one daily flight to Miami.

The US would be more than willing to have Open Skies with Argentina, which be of great benefit to all travelers.



a.
User currently offlineFlyguy1 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9598 times:

Anyone know of whether or not AA was approved for the extra JFK/MIA-GRU services they applied for?


727, L1011, MD80, A300, 777-200, 737-300, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, 737-800, A320. E190, E135, 767-200, CRJ9
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9562 times:

Quoting Flyguy1 (Reply 14):
Anyone know of whether or not AA was approved for the extra JFK/MIA-GRU services they applied for?

No idea, but what they want is 7 more MIA-GRU frequencies (to make MIA-GRU 4x daily), from what I have been told.



a.
User currently offlineArgentina From Argentina, joined Aug 2000, 374 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9395 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 13):
Very simple. The Argentine government has a very restrictive air treaty with the United States. Now, I don't see how it helps AR. It could, but AR obviously doesn't take advantage of it with just one daily flight to Miami.

54 weekly frequencies for each country (Argentina-USA) are more than enough. Getting more would imply almost an open skies agreement.

AR flies 6 weekly frequencies nowadays, and LAN Argentina will be flying 7 weekly to MIA from October. That means 13 weekly for Argentina flag. Argentina (with the actual fleet size of its carriers) cannot cover more than that by now, and fares are really very competitive, so why should the Argentine Government be more flexible? No need to destroy our country anymore.


User currently offlineAA767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2369 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9391 times:

Mark, do you know what is going on with MIA-Periera?

I know that was something AA has been looking at....



"The low fares airline."
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4913 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Argentina (Reply 16):
Getting more would imply almost an open skies agreement.

And what is wrong with that?

Quoting Argentina (Reply 16):
so why should the Argentine Government be more flexible? No need to destroy our country anymore.

Destroy our country? Or destroy AR? What about the Argentinean PEOPLE and Businesses that would benefit from more choices, lower fares, etc.?


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9277 times:

Quoting Argentina (Reply 16):
54 weekly frequencies for each country (Argentina-USA) are more than enough. Getting more would imply almost an open skies agreement.

If it was more than enough, AA and DL would not be wanting for frequencies.

Quoting Argentina (Reply 16):

AR flies 6 weekly frequencies nowadays, and LAN Argentina will be flying 7 weekly to MIA from October. That means 13 weekly for Argentina flag. Argentina (with the actual fleet size of its carriers) cannot cover more than that by now, and fares are really very competitive, so why should the Argentine Government be more flexible? No need to destroy our country anymore.

That is pretty sad that you think that way. Open Skies means more flights and lower fares. It makes it more affordable for Argentines to travel, its makes it more affordable for cargo to get to Argentina, and it makes it more affordable for business to be done with Argentina. Many Argentines cannot afford to travel because of the ridiculous and restrictive air treaty set between Argentina and the USA that creates extremely high airfares because the 68 weekly US-Argentina flights do nothing to meet demand.



a.
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2926 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9218 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 19):
Many Argentines cannot afford to travel because of the ridiculous and restrictive air treaty set between Argentina and the USA that creates extremely high airfares because the 68 weekly US-Argentina flights do nothing to meet demand.

Well according to Wikpedia (so it's is suspect), Argentina is South America's strongest economy. So yes, 68 weekly flights is not enough to meet passenger and cargo demands of the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_America

Argentina's economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9213 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 20):
Well according to Wikpedia (so it's is suspect), Argentina is South America's strongest economy.

Most would probably argue that Chile and Uruaguay are the strongest economies, but Argentina has the highest per capita GDP. None the less, doesn't change the fact that, as you said, 68 weekly flights isn't enough.



a.
User currently offlineCHIFLYGUY From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9103 times:

SFO, Argentina is prone to periodic financial crises, like most Latin American economies. That's really one of the big problems down there. Economies are "strong" for a while, but corruption, lack of effective property rights and the rule of law, ethnic tensions (not really in Argentina, but elsewhere), international trading flows, and poor government policy bring about a crisis.

Chile is a notable exception. It is by far the best Latin American economy, but is much smaller than places like Brazil and Argentina.


User currently offlineArgentina From Argentina, joined Aug 2000, 374 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9081 times:

Quoting Panamair (Reply 18):
Destroy our country? Or destroy AR? What about the Argentinean PEOPLE and Businesses that would benefit from more choices, lower fares, etc.?



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 19):
Open Skies means more flights and lower fares. It makes it more affordable for Argentines to travel, its makes it more affordable for cargo to get to Argentina, and it makes it more affordable for business to be done with Argentina. Many Argentines cannot afford to travel because of the ridiculous and restrictive air treaty set between Argentina and the USA that creates extremely high airfares because the 68 weekly US-Argentina flights do nothing to meet demand.



Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 20):
Well according to Wikpedia (so it's is suspect), Argentina is South America's strongest economy. So yes, 68 weekly flights is not enough to meet passenger and cargo demands of the future.

According to the US Dept of State website, there are many countries that could be of great interest for the US to have an Open Skies Agreement with and they do not.

Think of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, Spain, UK, Russia, Japan, China and Argentina. There are no open skies agreements (OSA) between US and these countries. Check the list here:

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/2006/22281.htm

In Latin America, the only countries that signed an OSA with US are:

Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay, plus all central american countries from Panama to Guatemala. The rest, protect, like Australia and many others in the world do. So, should we give what US CARRIERS (not passengers) want that easy? Fares are pretty competitive in this market, compared to many others. OSA's are very good for countries with similar economies, but not for the developed-undeveloped pairs. Before opening the skies, the undeveloped countries must have an airline structure to afford that. Argentina and many others in the region, do not have it now. And you have to be careful and pay attention to what ALL your main neighbours do. Argentina is not "ridiculous and restrictive", think of it.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9008 times:

Quoting Argentina (Reply 23):
Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay, plus all central american countries from Panama to Guatemala. The rest, protect, like Australia and many others in the world do. So, should we give what US CARRIERS (not passengers) want that easy? Fares are pretty competitive in this market, compared to many others. OSA's are very good for countries with similar economies, but not for the developed-undeveloped pairs. Before opening the skies, the undeveloped countries must have an airline structure to afford that. Argentina and many others in the region, do not have it now. And you have to be careful and pay attention to what ALL your main neighbours do. Argentina is not "ridiculous and restrictive", think of it.

You are very wrongly assuming that just because it would not benefit Aerolineas Argentinas it would not benefit Argentina. So, maybe it wouldn't benefit AR. Who cares? Is it Argentina's fault AR is poorly ran? No. Increased service by US airlines means more tourism, more trade, more travel, and a boost to the overall economy. Argentines shouldn't suffer to protect an airline that can't get its act together. And to say that $800-$900 round-trip airfare during the low season is "competitive" is ridiculous.

Quoting Argentina (Reply 23):
Think of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, Spain, UK, Russia, Japan, China and Argentina. There are no open skies agreements (OSA) between US and these countries. Check the list here:

Nobody ever argued that only Argentina should have Open Skies. Open Skies with those countries would be very much welcomed. Still, however, Argentina's restrictions are much worse than most others.

Brazil - Similar situation to Argentina. The allowed 104 frequencies per country is too little. However, the Brazilian government has become lineant lately, and has allowed both AA and DL to go over their alloted frequencies to benefit the traveling public.

Mexico - Mexico's air treaty with the US is very, very lose, and only limits the number of airlines on city pairs (2 US/2 Mexico for business centres, 3 US/3 Mexico for beach destinations). It has zero limits on frequencies and is extremely lax.

Australia - The air treaty heavily protects Qantas, however there it has almost no limits on frequenices or city pairs and there is very sufficient US-Australia service.

Colombia - What was once a very restrictive air treaty become much less restrictive this past January.

South Africa - Air treaty restricts flights to 21 from each side, but who cares? Only half those frequencies are used and it covers demand.

Spain - Very lax air treaty. Not Open Skies, but there are little limits and it allows the USA-Spain market to be very well served.

UK - Open Skies outside of Gatwick and Heathrow.

Japan - Not heavily restrictive and allows the market to be well served.

Russia - The market is well served as is.

China - Similar to Argentina. Very restrictive, hurts the consumer.

Does Argentina "need" Open Skies with the US? No, they don't. They need a less restrictive air treaty. The US-Spain air treaty is not Open Skies, but it allows the market to be well served. Same with US-South Africa, US-Mexico, US-Japan, etc., etc. US-Argentina does not.



a.
25 LVTMB : Very well put. 100% agree. LVTMB
26 Marambio : A new agreement with the USA would hurt both Aerolíneas in particular and Argentina as a whole. Aerolíneas employes thousands of Argentine people ac
27 MAH4546 : AR flies one measly daily flight to the United States that relies almost entirely on O&D from Miami. How on earth does more services hurt them? It wo
28 Marambio : It will. American is the strongest player on the Argentina-USA market and it has huge hubs at MIA, DFW and JFK - it is able to get people from anywhe
29 CHIFLYGUY : This is faulty economic thinking. It does not account for comparative advantage, the benefits to the consumer vs. the benefits to the employess of AR
30 MAH4546 : AA adding a third daily MIA-EZE flight will do little to hurt AR. LAN Argentina is a bigger threat than Aerolineas Argentinas. UA moved it to IAD bec
31 Marambio : Good evening CHYFLYGUY, There's no such thing as a "correct" or "faulty" economic thiking, sir. My economic thinking might be "faulty" from your point
32 Marambio : Good evening Mark, It will hurt Aerolíneas because, as I explained on my previous post, the domestic network heavily relies on the international one.
33 CHIFLYGUY : Marambio, When thinking about the economic impact, it helps to take a smaller example of, say, the household, and use that to think about the issues.
34 Post contains images Marambio : CHYFLYGUY, Your nice post would fit perfectly on an ideal world, where jobs are taken for granted for everyone. However, things are pretty different a
35 CHIFLYGUY : Marambio, For what its worth, I would agree with you that small countries like Argentina are very vulnerable to being whipsawed by international capit
36 Marambio : CHIFLYGUY, It will certainly benefit the USA carriers more than the Argentine ones, and that's why I don't see the point of signing it - a bilateral a
37 Neo : Marambio, I totally agree with the points made on your previous e-mails. Argentina should not sign OS agreement with USA now, and in my opinion neith
38 Incitatus : I disagree with that. For the lack of flying rights there are very few flights between Northeast Brazil and the US. That, coupled with the visa requi
39 Argentina : So you mean that if we open our market completely, we will be stronger? Yeah, in poverty, for sure... Anyway, it's nice thinking different. I love di
40 Incitatus : Argentina is at the tail end of a 60-year economic decline. Argentina lacks a strong political class (Brazil lacks that too). Argentina also lacks st
41 Box37 : Simple answer to this question and also applies to Chile. I am going to put it in a politically correct way by stating that the "quality" of their po
42 LVICS : I don't know enough about what happens in our neighbour countries, but for sure our politicians are not very prone to respect the law or any other ru
43 Post contains images MD11junkie : Does Chapter 11 ring a bell to you? Cheers! Gastón - The MD11junkie
44 ARGIEPILOT : I have read this thread with interest. Both sides have valid arguments. Based on the fact that I live in Argentina, I tend to believe that I understan
45 TBCITDG : Since when has AR been an absolute monopoly? I will not go through the list of all the carriers that came and went but some that do come to mind are S
46 AACUN : The US is meeting with the Argentinian government this week to try to hammer something out as to an agreement over new flights... The thing is that th
47 ARGIEPILOT : Great to read your opinion. Since it has a 90% market share. I am not blaming AR. I am just saying that competition generally means lower fares and mo
48 Post contains images MD11junkie : OMG, this has gone too far and I didn't chime in with a full answer. So their own sister company is a bigger threat than a competitor? That is totally
49 Box37 : Having been on this earth 3 times more than you (according with your profile) and having worked in multiple countries is enough for me, and by the wa
50 Post contains images MD11junkie : I was not insulting. If you felt insulted I apologize. Sarcastic, yes. Many people in here take time to type and think they know, when they don't. I
51 ElmoTheHobo : Lan Argentina is not American's sister company, they are still competitors. American cooperates to a very limited extent with Lan Argentina. Lan Arge
52 Post contains images MD11junkie : You haven't read my post at all. It's well shown that AA hasn't even dropped prices, they raised them. When it gained 4x daily frequencies to the US,
53 Incitatus : An agreement that stifles the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in a poor economy where a permanent job is a privilege is bound to indirectly
54 Post contains images MD11junkie : No, it won't. A new agreement signed will not directly benefit the tourism industry. What if the government decides, after signing the agreement to i
55 ARGIEPILOT : Gaston: Here are my comments to your comments AR pilots (as any other Argentine citizen) have a constitutional right to go on strike (Article 14 of Ar
56 Post contains images MD11junkie : ARGIEPILOT, As long as you comply with the minimum emergency services that the law and Constitution require you it's legal. ARSA's pilot were clearly
57 ARGIEPILOT : Air transport is not included in the list of "essential services" regulated by law. Furthermore, if AR was not a monopoly, then their workers going o
58 Post contains images MD11junkie : I did not know that. Someone should change them, since you are screwing a lot of people that have no other way of going back home. There's a contradi
59 Post contains images LVICS : Will you please explain what makes you think so?
60 ARGIEPILOT : I believe that more competition generally fosters lower fares and better services (e.g. more destinations, routes, frequencies, aircraft types, etc.)
61 MD11junkie : You do support it, however. You can't strike and let the country get off undamaged. So, indirectly, by supporting the strike, you are supporting the
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...
Delta To Start 2nd Daily ATL-PTY posted Thu Mar 30 2006 21:22:16 by Luisca
Copa To Start 2nd Daily Non Stop PTY-GUA posted Fri Jan 27 2006 17:17:37 by Luisca
CO To Start 2nd Daily EWR-AMS posted Fri Dec 10 2004 00:47:33 by CB777
AA To Start 777 MIA-JFK-MIA posted Mon Oct 11 2004 01:34:53 by N62NA
AA To Start A Hub At Jfk? posted Mon Sep 9 2002 04:14:16 by Jcxp15
AA To Begin 2nd Daily DFW-CDG Flight posted Sat Aug 10 2002 17:20:14 by AirafriqueDKR
JJ To Begin 2nd Daily GRU-JFK Flight posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:47:04 by Neo
AA To Start JFK-SJD posted Wed Jul 26 2006 18:50:18 by BigGSFO
Egyptair Cargo Start 2nd Daily Flight To Ostend posted Thu Feb 24 2005 22:19:49 by Horus
AA To Start Daily Miami-Richmond, VA Service posted Sun Nov 30 2003 07:56:50 by MAH4546