Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 23221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4455 times:
I question the economics of that operation. The cost of operating a 763 on the short JFK-YYZ-JFK sectors, and YYZ's high airport costs, is likely to be higher than the revenue they'll generate from YYZ passengers, and the JFK stop and security/immigration hassles will make LA's product less attractive than AC nonstops YYZ-SCL, never mind taking about 4 to 5 hours longer. JFK is also so delay-prone that on time performance may be affected.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16524 posts, RR: 48 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4428 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9): The cost of operating a 763 on the short JFK-YYZ-JFK sectors, and YYZ's high airport costs, is likely to be higher than the revenue they'll generate from YYZ passengers, and the JFK stop and security/immigration hassles will make LA's product less attractive than AC nonstops YYZ-SCL, never mind taking about 4 to 5 hours longer
That's what I was thinking--I thought maybe a SCLLIMYYZ or even SCLGYEYYZ might be more appropriate.
MD11junkie From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4365 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9): I question the economics of that operation. The cost of operating a 763 on the short JFK-YYZ-JFK sectors, and YYZ's high airport costs, is likely to be higher than the revenue they'll generate from YYZ passengers, and the JFK stop and security/immigration hassles will make LA's product less attractive than AC nonstops YYZ-SCL, never mind taking about 4 to 5 hours longer. JFK is also so delay-prone that on time performance may be affected.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 9): checkmark That's what I was thinking--I thought maybe a SCLLIMYYZ or even SCLGYEYYZ might be more appropriate.
A tag on from JFK, even though it was not the best option - it is the best LAN has NOW. Why? Mainly because of three things:
-5th freedom rights from LIM, insufficient (approval of Open Skies is awaited)
-Consolidation of the JFK route.
These three items are basically essential to the operation.
LAN's business model includes three subsidiaries that share airplanes - these are LAN Chile, LAN Perú and LAN Ecuador. The rotation of the airplanes would actually be affected significantly if there was a plane dedicated to this route on the days mentioned in the article (all but Monday and Saturday).
Perú has limited the granting of 5th freedom rights to LAN Airlines, therefore LAN had to revert a lot of their peruvian international operation back to SCL. That's why we now have SCL-LAX-SCL and SCL-JFK-SCL. Those flights were exclusively done through LIM to obtain better loads and yields.
So far, the JFK route has seen a frequency increase - so therefore - there could be a marginal increase in the income generated by this route's tag on to YYZ, and strengthen it's performance.
There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
Hardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4341 times:
I find that the route will struggle because AC will start operating SCL nonstop from YYZ B767 at the end of the year. AC has decided to split SCL and EZE and both destinations will receive nonstop service.
SCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8534 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3935 times:
Quoting SOUTHAMERICA (Reply 23): AmericanEagle operates this route. Do oneworld members codeshare with AmericanEagle, or just with American mainline?
Currently, LA 5598 (JFK-YYZ) and LA 5597 (YYZ-JFK) are operated by American Eagle with an Embraer RJ-135. LA also places its code on mainline AA flights to and from YYZ too. However, given that AA will be parking the RJ-135's, I do not know if this codeshare will be maintained.
[Edited 2008-07-15 15:46:33]
25 Dellatorre: In terms of numbers TAM is bigger than LAN no question about it, but considering other aspects such as service quality, reliability and abroad recogn
26 SCL767: Well stated! And also it's worldwide network in cooperation with other Oneworld Alliance partners.
27 Flyyul: Awful decision. Lan, in this fuel environment, is going to use a B763 on a short sector, at the world's most expensive airport to land at? Just keep t
28 UPPERDECKFAN: Beyond that, chileans will have to get a US and a Canadian visa to get to YYZ on this flight
29 Babybus: If they didn't stop in JFK I'd consider doing this flight as I'd like to see YYZ and I'm planning a trip to SCL in November anyway. Unfortunately I do
30 SCL767: Business demand from SCL; also, this flight will allow connections from LIM to YYZ and will also pick up passengers in JFK travelling to YYZ. LAN has
31 Hardiwv: Fleet size, number of pax, number of destinations (domestic or international), to name a few. TAM is the no. 1 airline of South America, Latin Americ
32 SCL767: Factor in the size and population of Chile vs. that of Brazil. And also that LAN has seen a 10% rise in traffic since this time last year. TAM may be
33 Hardiwv: TAM is the leading airline of South America, Latin America and the Southern Hemisphere. TAM will end 2008 with 123 airplanes: 4 B77Ws, 2 B763s, and 1
34 SCL767: TAM's hubs and focus cities are ALL based in Brazil. However, unlike TAM, LAN has a central hub AND focus cities in four different South American cou
35 Hardiwv: TAM has a hub in ASU as well - TAM Mercosur is part of TAM Airlines. Anyway, if you combine all of LAN hubs in South America they are still much smal
36 SCL767: Still, your focusing on Brazil; even though it is the largest country in South America and TAM is the largest airline. TAM does not represent the maj
37 MotorHussy: Bit of a contradiction in terms really. Surprised some Australian a.nutter hasn't chewed you for this. QF surely wears this mantle. Regards MH
38 SCL767: Good point, since Australia is entirely located in the Southern Hemisphere; whereas Brazil is not! Also, TAM does not fly to Australia, but LA operat
39 Hardiwv: This is diverting the discussion and will be my last reply. Anything else pls send me a private message. As a consolation, you can say that LAN is the
40 SCL767: I don't need a consolidation; your argument regarding TAM's status as South America's leading airline is baseless. What concept? You did not mention
41 Hardiwv: Along with consolidating leadership in the Brazilian market, TAM has also recently assumed operating leadership in the southern hemisphere, according
42 MD11junkie: Sorry, and no offense to anyone, especially to my friend Hardiwv. But - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - has TAM to do with this thread? Please, lets continue
43 Viscount724: If you limit the discussion to international routes, isn't LA's longhaul widebody fleet much larger than TAM's?
44 Arcano: Indeed, at first time I thought why not MIA instead of JFK, aircraft availability perhaps? after all I think SCL-MIA a/c are used later as Lan Ecuado
45 RJ_Delta: I don't care which company is bigger than the other but there are different points to make a comparison. The reason why LAN chose to stop in JFK was
46 Airbus767: I don't believe this was mentioned, but will LA532/LA533 continue to fly to EZE as it does now, or will it be separated and just be YYZ-JFK-SCL and ba
47 Nickofatlanta: However if you use revenue passenger miles, I suspect you'll find that QF Group (including Jetstar) will be larger than JJ.