Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will We See LAX-GRU Again?  
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7643 posts, RR: 25
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Is there any possibility we will see LAX-GRU nonstop at any point in the foreseeable future? I think if an airline would do it, it would probably be TAM or another Brazilian airline. I dont think the domestic airlines would be interested.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32889 posts, RR: 71
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

In my opinion, no, there is not a possibility anytime soon. Ocean Air has been claiming they want to fly LAX-BOG-GRU, but we'll see if that ever happens.


a.
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

I wonder if AC uses their 5th freedom right its possible they could do YVR-LAX-GRU??? They are waiting for approval from the Australian government to do YZZ-LAX-SYD..

User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Maybe JL will try it when they relaunch NGO-LAX after the 787s come in. JL stated last year that they plan on rebuilding their LAX hub (never knew it was one). But it sounds that JL might even move JFK-GRU to YYZ-GRU or something like that.

However with a plane the size of the 787, LAX-GRU could be affordable and profitable...even for JL.

But I would say TAM has a much better bet.

One more might be DL. If they try do rebuild their LAX hub, I would sure like to see them connect Asia to South America and Western US.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offline2travel2know From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3693 times:

I would think that GRU-LAX could be a route for SA as a JNB (or CPT) - GRU tag-on.
JL flying LAX-GRU will have the problem of requiring U.S. visas for the Japan-Brazil passengers.
Now with its U.S. expansion, I think JJ may be looking into GRU-LAX.



I don't work for COPA Airlines!
User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11440 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3613 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
Maybe JL will try it when they relaunch NGO-LAX after the 787s come in. JL stated last year that they plan on rebuilding their LAX hub (never knew it was one). But it sounds that JL might even move JFK-GRU to YYZ-GRU or something like that

What about ANA ? They said in Brazil that probably in 2008 they could fly to Brazil with own metal !

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
But I would say TAM has a much better bet.

I doubt. They saw RG numbers for LAX route during the last year auction for RG and probably realize:
- They need a partnership with a Japanease carrier to feed the route (and they already keep this on their CDG Flagship route with 3 daily flight).
- They need also some domestic connections (as a * Alliance member, RG could use SA)">UA and US to reach domestic destinations in the United States, and SA)">AA, their partnership, does not keep a strong operation at LAX)

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 4):
I would think that GRU-LAX could be a route for SA as a JNB (or CPT) - GRU tag-on

I'm not so sure about the bilateral allowing such kind of flights.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
One more might be DL. If they try do rebuild their LAX hub, I would sure like to see them connect Asia to South America and Western US

IMO, if DL obtain more 7 frequencies, probably will run a JFK-GIG flight. Their problem is the lack of frequencies.

Felipe



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineVenezuela747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1428 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3600 times:

It would probably make more sense to have a stop between LAX and GRU....say LAX-MEX-GRU, LAX-CCS-GRU, LAX-BOG-GRU.....maybe AA will jump to that option


ROLL TIDE!!!
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7643 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 4):
I would think that GRU-LAX could be a route for SA as a JNB (or CPT) - GRU tag-on.

This occured to me as well. They could better serve both Brazil and South Africa as well. I would sure like to see LAX see SAA thorugh GRU. For those of us on the west coast and particularly Southern California its is a lot quicker to go through South America to get to South Africa than to go through the east coast. Kill two birds with one stone!!!



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6186 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

One would think that 2 of the largest cities in the world could fill at least one 767 a day each way...


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32889 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 8):
One would think that 2 of the largest cities in the world could fill at least one 767 a day each way...

The problem is not filling a plane, it often isn't. It is making money filling the plane.



a.
User currently offlineB752OS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
The problem is not filling a plane, it often isn't. It is making money filling the plane.

Does AV does well with their LAX service? That is yields. Everytime I have driven by terminal 2 in the early evening, the line is very very long at the AV counter, so I assume the flight has pretty good loads.


User currently offlineC010T3 From Brazil, joined Jul 2006, 3708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

I never understood why UA chose to run a second IAD-GRU instead of LAX/SFO-GRU.

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5464 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Quoting C010T3 (Reply 11):
I never understood why UA chose to run a second IAD-GRU instead of LAX/SFO-GRU.

Short-term outlook, which was maybe forced on them by post-911 and South American economics. A veteran of Panagra/Braniff/Eastern told me that South American routes are not consistently profitable, but are very profitable overall. Lose a little one year, make a lot another. UA, it seems, got tired of waiting for the good times.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25541 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting B752OS (Reply 10):
Does AV does well with their LAX service?

Since resuming service to LAX, last summer AV has averaged 127 passengers per flights. While there have been a few B757 substitutions by far most flight have been on the the 762 which would equal a 72.6% load factor. Definitely not a bad start for only the first 6 months.

Quoting C010T3 (Reply 11):
I never understood why UA chose to run a second IAD-GRU instead of LAX/SFO-GRU.

Multiple reasons.

To start with UA has self admittedly poorly positioned hubs to serve South America. While California might be a logical connecting point, its not quite feasible for UA to run the market. The most logical aircraft based on passenger demand is the 767-300. However the UA 763s cannot operate any trip beyond 12 hours scheduled block time due to a lack of crew rest facilities which are required per the FAA. In addition the cargo capacity would be near zero on such far deep South America flying from CA even without the crew rest roadblock. As such the only viable aircraft UA could assign would be the 777 or 744, however neither is supportable long term year round from a passenger angle.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 12):
Short-term outlook, which was maybe forced on them by post-911 and South American economics. A veteran of Panagra/Braniff/Eastern told me that South American routes are not consistently profitable, but are very profitable overall. Lose a little one year, make a lot another. UA, it seems, got tired of waiting for the good times.

UA deep South America network has been in the red consistently since 2000. Its somewhat sad, considering the constant growth in the region, however UA simply has been unable to capitalize on this and has had to draw down flying thru the years including dropping of its MIA mini-hub.
With the current general lack of widebody capacity and the regions loss making state, South America is clearly not a network priority. When its comes down to a crunch equipment is getting robbed out of the region as was done recently with the late announcement that ORD-EZE was not resume this winter.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 12):
A veteran of Panagra/Braniff/Eastern told me that South American routes are not consistently profitable, but are very profitable overall. Lose a little one year, make a lot another. UA, it seems, got tired of waiting for the good times.

Latin America has changed a heck of alot since those days.... Latin American economies have "grown up" and are growing at hefty rates - and those routes are profitable, esp. to/from Brazil which is the economic center of Latin America.

We may well see DL start additional service to GRU and they will probably do it by adding gateways. As 764s come into service, DL could well increase capacity to Brazil by increasing the size of its planes and shift some of the existing flights to new gateways.

UA simply doesn't have the network structure to compete in Latin America - which is one reason why a merger w/ CO makes alot of sense. In the meantime, UA will maintain the smallest size in Latin America it can to say it competes in the market and tie up the slots from being used by someone else.


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...
When Will We See E-Jets At LAX? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:23:53 by PPVRA
When Will We See Pics From 2007 posted Wed Jan 3 2007 10:39:44 by An225
When Will We See A B787 "In The Flesh"? posted Thu May 25 2006 17:39:35 by Speedmarque
Spring '06 Schedules, When Will We See Them? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 05:59:46 by KBUF737
When Will We See Consolidation? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 16:54:02 by 7E72004
When Will We See The 7e7? posted Fri Dec 31 2004 00:17:20 by Erj145lr
When Will We See Austrian A340 New Colors? posted Tue Apr 13 2004 20:38:20 by INNflight
When Will We See AirTran At SEA? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 19:35:38 by BCAInfoSys
When Will We See The First Ulcc? posted Sun Jan 11 2004 06:24:36 by Flyf15
When Will We See The End Of The A343? posted Mon Nov 10 2003 02:51:01 by ACB777