GIG is longe overdue. Hopefully Infraero won't block AZ like they did last time since by then at least CO will have switched from Terminal 1 from Terminal 2, and if CM gets into *A they'll follow them. Which leaves more space for AZ to settle.
Quoting AF086 (Reply 2): GIG is longe overdue. Hopefully Infraero won't block AZ like they did last time since by then at least CO will have switched from Terminal 1 from Terminal 2, and if CM gets into *A they'll follow them. Which leaves more space for AZ to settle.
I personally think GIG is the front-runner because GRU is already a star performer with 7+2 weekly flights operating with the B772. GIG would be the natural expansion for AZ in Brazil and the region.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11496 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6923 times:
Quoting AF086 (Reply 2): GIG is longe overdue. Hopefully Infraero won't block AZ like they did last time since by then at least CO will have switched from Terminal 1 from Terminal 2, and if CM gets into *A they'll follow them. Which leaves more space for AZ to settle
And it's a station where yields will be very interesting: oil, industry/business, VFR, leisure.... i'm sure AZ will obtain very nice results out of GIG if they use good equipment and schedule.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
Therefore one can fly LAX-CDG-FCO with a choice of 3 flights a day on alliance partner AF, as well as LAX-AMS/ATL-FCO on KL/DL. No chance AZ can do anything against that. As much as I'd love to see Italy having a good 'flag' airline serving many destinations, i think AZ are not doing it right at the moment.
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2034 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4594 times:
Well, LAX again. This time, I don't think this is a wise decision. First of all, the market is going to be exceptionally suspicious of AZ. Pull out, come back, pull out, come back, there is not going to be any trust in the market.
IF they are going to dedicate two 777s to the west coast, better they put it into SFO. Of course, now that I live in Seattle I don't have as much vested interest as before, but if I had a 777 in SFO, the route would be a winner. There is sufficient VFR and corporate traffic going to/from Italy from SFO and v.v. that a year round route can be profitable...only under the following circumstances:
In the winter, they operate the aircraft only four times a week. With a four day a week operation, there would only be a need to house two crews in SFO on a ongoing basis instead of three (which we had to do before - the crew gets a full 48 hours in SFO due flight being over 12 hours duty time). Additionally, the 777 can carry the cargo that we could not carry from SFO with the 763. Plus while most of the Italians in the Bay Area are from the north of Italy, most will not object to flying to Rome before going on to their destination. Plus, they have only been burned by AZ once, not twice as LAX has.
I'll bring it up with my friends in Italy and see what news I can get.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Abrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5144 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4): LAX-FCO is a very low yielding market. As much as Id love to see them flying it again, they would better off not.
If AZ kept their hub at MXP, I think an LAX flight would have had a much better shot.
= Yup. I don't understand their LAX strategy. It is as if they go to MIDT, get a listing of high pax and match up with their lack of service. Developing a network is much more harder than that. Also, I am surprised new owners AF are OK with this. LAX-CDG has a lot of traffic connecting on to FCO. Or, perhaps, this is to take back traffic from LH which also does well with FCO connections on their LAX flights?
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15): How many times have AZ announced GIG, LAX and SHA, now? I think this is the third. At least LAX started, even if it only lasted five months.