Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of UA In South America  
User currently offlineAnetter123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

Hey everyone,

I apologize if this has already been discussed. I'm curious to hear opinions from anyone on the future of UA in South America.

First off, does anyone know just how profitable UA does flying to GRU/GIG/EZE?

I get this impression that UA would love to pull those 763's that sit in those stations practically all day and put them to fly other routes (I feel) UA would be more profitable in (incase they aren't profitable at all flying the deep south).

UA had a nice operation to most of South America back in the 90's and now its just EZE/GRU/GIG that get served.

UA really can't add anymore flights to S.A. from ORD or IAD. LAX would seem like the obvious choice if they wanted to add flights from a 3rd hub, but SOOO much traffic from LAX already gets fed through ATL/DFW/ORD/IAD/IAH/JFK/MIA with UA/AA/DL/CO etc.

I'm surprised MVD lasted as long as it did and that one got pulled. I don't know why I get this feeling that the other stations days are numbered. Hopefully it will be the opposite.

UA just isn't strong in Latin America, period.

Was it SAL they just pulled out of not too long ago?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6873 times:



Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
UA had a nice operation to most of South America back in the 90's and now its just EZE/GRU/GIG that get served.

UA also had a small hub at MIA in the 90s. That's not a coincidence. UA couldn't profitably serve SCL from any of its hubs.

If the limited South America service UA has left didn't make money, they wouldn't fly it. It's not like there aren't other opportunities out there for 763s.

Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
I'm surprised MVD lasted as long as it did and that one got pulled.

The opportunity cost of flying to MVD was almost zero. The aircraft sits in EZE now. I wonder if the demise of ORD-EZE killed MVD.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAnetter123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6858 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
UA also had a small hub at MIA in the 90s

Yep, I was part of it  Smile Worked with them from 1998-2003. We were very profitable in cargo, especially to SCL.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
The opportunity cost of flying to MVD was almost zero. The aircraft sits in EZE now. I wonder if the demise of ORD-EZE killed MVD.

I could totally understand this. Even though it was shy of a 30 minute flight only, the cost to run the station and balance the profits were almost zero. Especially now when you had to dedicate a certain number of seats on the only EZE-US filght to MVD only passengers. I can understand why UA pulled from this short route. If UA had more flights from EZE onward to the US, then totally keep this flight. But with one flight to IAD and thats it, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.


User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6840 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
If the limited South America service UA has left didn't make money, they wouldn't fly it. It's not like there aren't other opportunities out there for 763s.

Agreed. UAL has embraced Six Sigma management principles in the past couple of years. Metrics and numbers are what matters to them. Unlike A.net members who simply think an airline should fly from Point A to Point B because it would "be really neato", United is now looking at the hard, cold facts and figures of what makes the most sense. Believe me any and all routes are under scrutiny. If UA can make more money and optimize its metrics using the 3 South America 767s elsewhere, then they would or will be moved in a split second. Look how UA has recently optimized its 777 and 747 fleets by moving them to more profitable routes.


User currently offlineAnetter123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6779 times:



Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 3):
UA can make more money and optimize its metrics using the 3 South America 767s elsewhere, then they would or will be moved in a split second.

I also agree with Cubrsrule that if UA didn't make money in their current South America routes that they would have axed out the routes. I suppose the current routes do "ok" for them, especially considering UA changes GIG to IAD nonstop during the holidays and from what I've read that route did very well last season.

The fact that they sit in those stations practically all day is what has me curious to their profitability. Take EZE for instance. EZE has lots of flights to the US. AA alone flys to 4 US cities from EZE. UA only flys to EZE from IAD. Its only 1 flight a day. How much does it cost UA to run EZE and its actual UA employees (rather then outsourcing) to sustain a once a day 763 flight to IAD? A plane makes $$$ when its in the air, not sitting in the tarmac for 10 hours a day.

Even UA's 895 ORD-HKG which is a 15 + hour flight continues to SIN that same day it arrives into HKG just about 3 hours later...lol.

Lets see what the current routes have in store for UA in the future and if any potential new routes permit.


User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6716 times:



Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):

First off, does anyone know just how profitable UA does flying to GRU/GIG/EZE?

I would assume quite profitable, because as others have mentioned, UA is very tight on internationally-configured widebodies. Also you have to remember that Brazil (and until very recently Argentina) are not open skies and are tightly constrained by bilateral agreements. Thus, this artificially drives up yields for the carriers that do have these precious rights. AA and DL really want to expand in Brazil, but they can't due to the bilateral, and EZE has been a huge moneymaker in the past few years with airlines clamoring to add service (although I believe the bilateral was recently liberalized).

Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
I'm surprised MVD lasted as long as it did and that one got pulled. I don't know why I get this feeling that the other stations days are numbered. Hopefully it will be the opposite.

Well MVD was a special case in that it was fed only from EZE. EZE flights were bursting at the seams, and each passenger flying to MVD took away a seat that UA could sell to EZE. Thus, the tag-on wasn't necessary to the profitability of the flight, and was dropped.

Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
UA really can't add anymore flights to S.A. from ORD or IAD. LAX would seem like the obvious choice if they wanted to add flights from a 3rd hub, but SOOO much traffic from LAX already gets fed through ATL/DFW/ORD/IAD/IAH/JFK/MIA with UA/AA/DL/CO etc.

LAX would be a good choice, but the yields aren't quite there. Obviously there's also a lot fewer connecting opportunities, and the flight is very long (something like 5600 miles LAX-GRU), meaning lots of gas and aircraft time for a relatively low-yield route.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
The opportunity cost of flying to MVD was almost zero. The aircraft sits in EZE now. I wonder if the demise of ORD-EZE killed MVD.

Perhaps. I think it's more just due to the explosion in demand to EZE.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6684 times:

United is now no more than an afterthought to South America, with just four flights per day to the continent (1 to Buenos Aires, 1 to Rio de Janeiro, and 2 to Sao Paulo). That will go down to 3 this summer, as the nonstop IAD-GIG flight drops in favor of a one-stop through GRU. Now, some say that will be returning nonstop, and will thereafter stay nonstop, in October, but we'll see.

Either way, United was very smart to cut their losses and recognize that there was simply no way they were ever going to be a meaningful competitor in the South America market. Miami was a good gateway for them while it lasted in the go-go 90s, but up against the 800-lb gorilla in AA, United stood no chance. In addition, without Miami, United was left without a viable hub to serve the region - Chicago and Washington are too far north, and Chicago is too far west. LAX is not only too far west, but would serve a relatively long and marginal market segment. The only market in South America that United could likely even attempt to make work from LAX would be Sao Paulo, and even that would be quite a stretch.

The current schedule that they have in place: ORD-GRU, IAD-GRU-GIG/IAD-GIG, and IAD-EZE, is - I suspect - about the best you'll get out of United in the forseable future.


User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6641 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Anetter123 (Reply 4):
I also agree with Cubrsrule that if UA didn't make money in their current South America routes that they would have axed out the routes. I suppose the current routes do "ok" for them, especially considering UA changes GIG to IAD nonstop during the holidays and from what I've read that route did very well last season.

Some info given by UA in Brazil, expect they turn the route to a year-round one.

Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
UA had a nice operation to most of South America back in the 90's

They use to fly from MIA and JFK several routes, which i believe are the hubs/city's with more ties with Latin America. Now considering IAD, isn't the best place on East Coast to connect Latin America, and their network is a picture of this change. As explained ORD and LAX are far from the markets and will rely on O&D more than the East Coast, O&D which is not so big in fact.

Without a better hub for Latin America, IMO, UA will continue to be just a small player on this important and lucrative market. And as i doubt they will introduce a new hub.... UA next step will be probably just consolidated GIG as it's 3rd non-stop route.

Felipe



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5246 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6586 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
That will go down to 3 this summer, as the nonstop IAD-GIG flight drops in favor of a one-stop through GRU. Now, some say that will be returning nonstop, and will thereafter stay nonstop, in October, but we'll see.

And if it doesn't come back I absolutely expect to see AA, DL, and CO request those rights be stripped from UA and given to one of them.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32736 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6541 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):

Either way, United was very smart to cut their losses and recognize that there was simply no way they were ever going to be a meaningful competitor in the South America market. Miami was a good gateway for them while it lasted in the go-go 90s, but up against the 800-lb gorilla in AA, United stood no chance.

United had plenty of chances against AA and the market for two U.S. airlines to hub for South America at MIA easily exists. The problem with United was that they kept cutting destinations and frequencies. One daily flight to Caracas? That was a joke.

As flights, MIA-GRU and MIA-EZE were profitable until the very end. The additional costs of the Miami station - the widebody pilot base and FA base for example - for two daily flights to South America killed the economics of operating the routes. And the more flights they cut, the harder it was to have a loyal business flyer base.



a.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6533 times:



Quoting Anetter123 (Thread starter):
First off, does anyone know just how profitable UA does flying to GRU/GIG/EZE?

As a whole UA's Latin America network looses money and has done so since 2000 (per 10K filings) Only in 2007 did things turn with positive margins.

For a little feel of how they do vis-a-vis their peers check these two post out of mine for Q2 and Q3 of 2007.
US Carriers Intl Route Profitability 3Q2007 (by LAXintl Feb 15 2008 in Civil Aviation)
US Carriers International Route Profitability (by Laxintl Sep 26 2007 in Civil Aviation)

At the end of the day, I would not expect much with UA in Latin America. Especially now that they have comprehensive codeshares with TAM and TACA to Central America, I strongly suspect they will let these partners cover the region.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 7):
Some info given by UA in Brazil, expect they turn the route to a year-round one.

Surprising to hear, as the info I have is quite the opposite. Performance of the GIG nonstop has been 'disappointing'. Load and revenue wise the nonstop route has been poor. Here are the LF's for the 5 months of the route.

Oct07 - 41.5% (yes only 41.5% LF)
Nov07 - 65.3%
Dec07 - 74.4%
Jan08 - 82.4%
Feb08 - 67.0%



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6531 times:

Interesting 1991 NY Times article on how UA outbid AA by $5 million ($135 to $130 million) to take over Pan Am's South America routes.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...9D0CE6D7103FF935A25751C1A967958260


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6513 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 8):
And if it doesn't come back I absolutely expect to see AA, DL, and CO request those rights be stripped from UA and given to one of them.

Yep. CO will probably want to increase flying on IAH/EWR-GRU, or possibly want to start IAH-GIG and/or EWR-GIG.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
United had plenty of chances against AA

At the beginning, yes.

Back in the 1990-1991-1992 timeframe, the two were pretty much toe to toe, and both had about an equal shot in the market. The difference, of course, is that AA was intently focused from day one on turning Eastern's already huge South American enterprise into an unequaled position of dominance, while United was - well, as you say - less focused.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
and the market for two U.S. airlines to hub for South America at MIA easily exists.

I'm not so sure. I don't know if MIA could viably support another airline hub to South America. Some additional flights by other airlines to select South American destinations, sure, but I'm not sure about an entire other hub.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
One daily flight to Caracas? That was a joke.

But that is just the point. MIA may well be able to support another airline on, say, MIA-CCS, but 4 more daily flights by another airline up against AA's 4 daily flights. This is why United could never have succeeded at MIA after the early 1990s: once AA got into a leadership position where they came to control or dominate most major South American markets, there was no more room for another airline to come in with more than a tepid 1 or maybe 2 daily flights. But, of course, that sort of a schedule is not sustainable up against the AA juggernaut. As the saying goes: when it comes to airline hubs, there's a big difference between being a close #2 (AA at ORD, for example) and a distant #2 (DL at DFW, or UA at MIA, for example).


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8341 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA clearly has enough business for its 767-300ER to continue flying to Brazil and Buenos Aires. These are the two biggest markets in South America, flying from ORD and IAD connects two importants North American cities with the two most impportant in South America. Washington and Chicago are two centers needing connections to all the important cities of the world. The days of Miami and JFK are over, this changed when Eastern and Pan AM closed their doors and AA took over Miami. EZE and GRU are like NRT, CDG or LHR today, ATL, ORD, IAD, IAH and DFW are reachable from these two Latin cenetrs of influence.

User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

UA doesn't have the southern US presence to be a strong competitor to Latin America. That's why NW stays out of Latin America. UA's only advantage over NW is that UA has a presence in WAS which is a strong Latin population and is 'on the way" for many of the key NE-Latin markets - although those markets are a fraction of the total US Latin populations.

UA's Latin network did make money in the 3rd quarter last year based on DOT data. It is likely that UA does best in Brazil which is artificially constrained because of the restrictive bilateral.

If DL and CO expand in Argentina based on the more liberal bilateral, UA's presence at EZE might not be assured.

Right now, the weak US dollar is leading to strong traffic increases for all US carriers on nearly all routes.

The best prospect for a larger UA presence in Latin America would be via a merger with CO. UA's only meaningful presence in Latin America is the Southern Cone where CO is relatively weak. CO is much stronger in Central America an northern S. America where UA is weak. Their Latin networks fit well together.


User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6275 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Surprising to hear, as the info I have is quite the opposite. Performance of the GIG nonstop has been 'disappointing'. Load and revenue wise the nonstop route has been poor. Here are the LF's for the 5 months of the route.

Oct07 - 41.5% (yes only 41.5% LF)
Nov07 - 65.3%
Dec07 - 74.4%
Jan08 - 82.4%
Feb08 - 67.0%

October... the flight just begin Oct/28. This LF is really the non-stop or based on the entire month leg from São Paulo also ?

Look to this:

Comments from UA Brazil
http://www.panrotas.com.br/canais/re...ticia.asp?cod_not=36152&pesquisa=1

"UA thanks passengers, agencies, consolidators, partners, political authorities and from tourism for the success of this flight. Thanks for them the seasonal flight got a high average fare and loads, surpassing all our expectations", says Michael Guenther, General Director for UA in Brazil

And if you take a look on this from one consolidator, will see UA GIG-IAD has not been included. This come in force just after 4 episodes where UA planes face maintenance problems and the press begin a massive exposure.

https://www.gapnet.com.br/vis_comunicados.asp?cod_info=31790

It says.. conditions valid only for flights from SAO

I do believe if the flight performs so bad as you report they should include RIO on this.

Hakan, is just what the press says, not my comments. And in fact the flight is available for booking again, if it's so bad, why ?

Felipe



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25165 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

The 41.5% number for Oct07 was the 3-4 days of nonstop flying. The GRU-GIG tag was 29.1% LF for the 27 days it operated in Oct07.

I dont know about Mr Gunthers comments, however the loads are what they are as I provided with GRU running 10-20% higher (depending on month), with folks in Chicago not having been very thrilled.

Yes flight is scheduled back for next winter -- either way UA wants to retain its Brazil rights and would use it for a place holder. I just dont see the route is even close to be ready for year-round service as another a.net poster had mentioned in another thread about United international flying.

With TAM codeshare I suspect it would be cheaper to focus feeding them in the long run then United pursuing its own flying particularly in deep South America.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6157 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 16):

Hakan, a seasonal flight has it's own limits and to be sure, UA need to rebuilt it's base of customers in Rio. For sure the non-stop help to establish them again in the market and i'm sure an average load higher of 70% for the first year is good considering fares to Brazil isn't cheap as you know, and i checked fares several times, and never saw C for less than $ 6,000. I remember you comment about my friends should take the flight and help... seems that even with not so higher loads, yields would be better, as well as cargo (this flight use to carry a lot of mail and about 10t of total cargo every flight)
Am i right ?

DL begins like them, with around 70% and now, i just check DOT reports and for Sep/07 GIG-ATL performs better than GRU-ATL in both cargo and pax. The same DL that has just 25% of it's 2 GRU-ATL from Rio.

And JJ code-share just begin on December IIRC, so many customers were not able to take advantage of this. Now the flight has even JJ flight number.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6153 times:

The dominate US airlines to South America, AA, DL and CO, can only wish they had UA's dominance to Asia. Some airlines are strong to one market, other airlines are stronger to some, etc. Yes, UA has three flights to South America but AA has no flights to Australia. So what?

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8341 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

United in there post Ch 11 new life has based everything around its four hubs plus LAX. With the exception of Seattle to NRT all international flights go from a hub. Being strong from IAD & ORD to EZE & GRU has nothing to do with a Miami or JFK to GRU or EZE flight. I applaud UA for having the vision to operate IAD to EZE & GRU if for only the diplomatic traffic.

User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5174 times:

I'll be flying this route next week. I'll let you know the loads.

What I can say is the fare from London was cheaper than the direct route.. so there's not much yield unless I just got an excellant deal.



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently onlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4781 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 18):
The dominate US airlines to South America, AA, DL and CO, can only wish they had UA's dominance to Asia. Some airlines are strong to one market, other airlines are stronger to some, etc. Yes, UA has three flights to South America but AA has no flights to Australia. So what?

In all cases dominance does not mean huge profits for them. To tell about profits, talk about BA, AF and LH that are stronger in three or even four markets (North America, Latin America, Africa and Asia) and get profits just 6 to 10 times higher the US Airlines. They all have weakness and they need to expand.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5925 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

would be so nice to see them back in CCS... maybe with a flight to IAD using a A319...


Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 61
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4593 times:



Quoting Avianca (Reply 22):
would be so nice to see them back in CCS... maybe with a flight to IAD using a A319...

From what I've heard here on A.net - thanks MAH - the market between the U.S. and Venezuela has largely collapsed, outside of the market to South Florida (Miami), which is booming, and to Houston, which will always be there due to the oil links.

If AA and CO can't even sustain more than 1-2 flights per week to JFK and EWR, respectively, I'm not sure if UA could make a IAD flight work, but I suppose anything is possible.

Either way, though, they likely wouldn't be able to actually start the flight, as the Venezuelan government has halted any and all new air service by U.S. carriers to Venezuela in the last few years. The crazy nut Hugo, you know.


User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5925 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4560 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
From what I've heard here on A.net - thanks MAH - the market between the U.S. and Venezuela has largely collapsed, outside of the market to South Florida (Miami), which is booming, and to Houston, which will always be there due to the oil links.

If AA and CO can't even sustain more than 1-2 flights per week to JFK and EWR, respectively, I'm not sure if UA could make a IAD flight work, but I suppose anything is possible.

yes and now... with good connections (also for Europe) flights the flight could work IMO.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
Either way, though, they likely wouldn't be able to actually start the flight, as the Venezuelan government has halted any and all new air service by U.S. carriers to Venezuela in the last few years. The crazy nut Hugo, you know.

yes true... but not only the fault by Hugo, also by the DOT...



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
25 Klwright69 : Aren't CO and UA just about equal in terms of presence to the southern part of South America?
26 Commavia : Yes. Their presence is almost identical - both have a single daily to EZE, and both have two dailies to Brazil, both of which are nonstop to GRU, wit
27 Avianca : CO has actually flights to CCS, BOG, CLO, UIO, GYE, LIM in the northern region, or do I annything missing? regards Avianca
28 WorldTraveler : no they are not. DL has 3 daily flights to Brazil year around (ATLGRU, JFKGRU, and ATLGIG) as well as service to Chile which CO does not serve. DL ha
29 Commavia : I know. That is what I was saying: Continental has a big presence in this region, while United has none.
30 SJOtoLIR : UA withdrew LAX-SAL and vice versa on March 01st. However, TA SAL-LAX is code-sharing with UA in the meanwhile. Same with the rest of the operations
31 Commavia : Thus, they have essentially no presence in Chile.
32 Klwright69 : World Traveler, did you read my post? I never even mentioned DL at all. Are you so concerned someone is going to diminish DL that you are now seeing t
33 WorldTraveler : in deep S. America, UA has a larger presence than CO does. neither CO or UA serves Chile. If you want to fly on a US carrier to Chile, it will have t
34 Commavia : Incorrect, at least during the summer. This summer, United will have a total of 21 weekly flights, all on 767-300ERs, to "Deep" South America, and in
35 WorldTraveler : well let's just pick the season we want to make our point. How about we look at the WHOLE year, shall we. We wouldn't want UA to get credit for their
36 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : UA served SCL for about 10 years but suspended service in January 2003. Photo of their last flight from SCL prior to departure. View Large View Mediu
37 Commavia : The point I was making was that it remains to be seen if United will continue to operate IAD-GIG as a standalone flight in the future. If we do inclu
38 JoFMO : Why would anyone do that when you can fly an AA / LAN codeshare? Is there a chance that a combined UA & CO would open SCL again from either IAH, EWR
39 LipeGIG : The fact is that for both, Deep South America is not a strategic market. Just need to say that AA has more flights to EZE than both of them and even
40 WorldTraveler : they have served it so far so it does have to be included. If they don't serve it next winter, then it will be included at that point. So far, they h
41 STT757 : DL though is in the red with regards to the financial performance of their Latin American operations while CO is in the black, there's a reason why C
42 LipeGIG : Agree and the rumors about DL flying ATL-REC are growing in Brazil. Their results in Brazil are impressive, and i believe it's the reason for holding
43 OA412 : Care to share your source proving that DL is not making money on ATL-SCL? Or, since you claim no one can make money flying to SCL, do you have a sour
44 STT757 : I was referencing CO, DL and UAL, AA is unique due to it's MIA advantage. It is widely known that SCL is a poor performer for DL.
45 LAXdude1023 : SCL seems to be the least profitable of the deep South America routes (or is it GIG?). Im not sure about MIA and ATL, but the DFW-SCL route seems to
46 OA412 : Well you said "you cannot make money flying there" so I was assuming that you meant that no one, AA included, who flies to SCL makes any money there.
47 WorldTraveler : You mean you widely perceive it to be unprofitable because you can't bear the thought that DL could be serving a city that CO cannot and still make m
48 Post contains images OA412 : Just like all the DOT data that you constantly quote and provide links too?
49 Cubsrule : DL has tried seasonal additional frequency on ATL-SCL (as well as occasional upgrades to 764s) in the past, which would seem to indicate that, at lea
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...
Brazil's Anac Favors End Of Bilaterals In South Am posted Mon Apr 23 2007 02:33:20 by Laxintl
Future Of IB In OneWorld posted Sat Apr 21 2007 10:15:51 by EUROBUS
One World Codesharing In South America posted Fri Mar 9 2007 11:34:02 by Richardw
Largest Airlines In South America? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 17:51:07 by FreequentFlier
DC-8 Freighters In South America posted Wed Feb 14 2007 12:31:39 by Mozart
AC In South America posted Wed Feb 7 2007 19:05:10 by Eastern023
Please Explain KLM-AF In South America posted Tue Feb 6 2007 16:20:46 by Eastern023
Future Of UA At NRT posted Mon Feb 5 2007 00:53:01 by LAXdude1023
Is The Future Of Bmi In Manchester? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 12:46:03 by BestWestern
World Cup 2014 In South America, EK Should Prepare posted Mon Jul 10 2006 14:15:32 by EK156