commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5181 times:
Should be interesting to see what this does to yields - that's a not-insignificant increase in capacity. Not saying it won't work - just interested to see what its economic impact will be.
Argentina currently has tons of unused frequencies for U.S. carriers, so AA should have no problem getting this approved - as good as done.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3): Are these day time flights when the 777 would just be on the ground ?
Yes.
This summer AA will have 4 777s on the ground at EZE every day - they all come in in the morning, and all leave at night (except 3 days a week when one of them hops over to MVD to sit for the day).
This will just be turning one of those planes back to MIA during daylight hours instead of sitting all day in EZE, while another 777 that would have been sitting in MIA all day (an early morning arrival from EZE/GRU, and an evening turn back to LHR/EZE/GRU) will now head down to EZE.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4780 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting commavia (Reply 4): This will just be turning one of those planes back to MIA during daylight hours instead of sitting all day in EZE, while another 777 that would have been sitting in MIA all day (an early morning arrival from EZE/GRU, and an evening turn back to LHR/EZE/GRU) will now head down to EZE.
The problem is that, it doesn't work as daylight. Even at GRU, AA only keep daylight service to MIA on weekends. In my view it would make more sense to use the 772 where F market can be added, using 763 to such additional services.
I don't think 4 weekly additional EZE service got something more than C and Y market.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4772 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 5): In my view it would make more sense to use the 772 where F market can be added, using 763 to such additional services.
I don't think 4 weekly additional EZE service got something more than C and Y market.
The problem is that since the rest of AA's EZE schedule is presently all 777s (since all those peak-time double-redeyes can easily support it), putting a 767 on the daylight flights would involve either an atrociously inefficient aircraft schedule, or changing one of those existing 777 flights (1xDFW, 1xJFK, 2xMIA) to a 767.
Thus, AA obviously feels that the net marginal revenue contribution - even with some F yield dilution - generated from this flight (less the marginal cost of operating it) is superior to the net marginal revenue contribution of flying a 767 on these flights but in turn having to downgrade one of the immensely-profitable flights already operating with a 777.
crosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4772 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 5): In my view it would make more sense to use the 772 where F market can be added, using 763 to such additional services.
But the problem with doing that is that there probably wouldn't be any aircraft available to do this. As commavia said, these are 777s which would otherwise sit there during the day. But if you want to get a 763 for these daytime flights to EZE, then you would have to start sending 763s to EZE or GRU for the overnight flights, which I'm guessing is less than optimal.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4373 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting commavia (Reply 6): The problem is that since the rest of AA's EZE schedule is presently all 777s (since all those peak-time double-redeyes can easily support it), putting a 767 on the daylight flights would involve either an atrociously inefficient aircraft schedule, or changing one of those existing 777 flights (1xDFW, 1xJFK, 2xMIA) to a 767.
Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7): But the problem with doing that is that there probably wouldn't be any aircraft available to do this. As commavia said, these are 777s which would otherwise sit there during the day
I'm talking just about the additional flights. If the focus is on additional demand, and i believe such demand is more Y and C, they could as i use to say swap the 763 with lets say MIA-GRU or MIA-GIG. Just that. In Sao Paulo will be another one, in Rio would be the first AA non-stop with First Class.
Additional potential revenue in Bs Aires vs new revenue in Rio ? I don't know what is best.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
hardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4140 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 4): This summer AA will have 4 777s on the ground at EZE every day - they all come in in the morning, and all leave at night (except 3 days a week when one of them hops over to MVD to sit for the day).
Great news for EZE one of the top performers in AA network. MIA-EZE can certainly accommodate more supply and AA is doing the right thing. EZE and GRU will have plenty of AA planes resting furing the day!
Skyguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
What about JFK-EZE? I know that during Christmas peak travel time they add on another 767 to make it double daily flights. Any scope to increase the frequency to double daily during the summer time?
Also, what happens to the aircraft sitting on the ground in EZE? I've seen 2-3 AA aircraft parked away from the terminal building with all doors open, do they do some sort of more detailed or deep cleaning of the interior of the aircrafts during this time? I would imagine it would be cheaper there than to do it on one of their maintenance bases in the US.
"Those who talk, do not know, and those who know, do not talk."
flyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 851 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
On a related note, how do you guys get access to that airlineinfo.com website? i tried to fill out the registration form, but it was denied? Am I blacklisted??!!
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 8): If the focus is on additional demand, and i believe such demand is more Y and C, they could as i use to say swap the 763 with lets say MIA-GRU or MIA-GIG. Just that. In Sao Paulo will be another one, in Rio would be the first AA non-stop with First Class.
Additional potential revenue in Bs Aires vs new revenue in Rio ? I don't know what is best.
I'm not really sure what you're suggesting.
Again - this makes sense with a 777 because putting a 767 in the market would require downgrading one of the existing U.S.-EZE flights to a 767. AA obviously feels that any revenue dilution from a larger plane on these 4 weekly flights is outweighed by the grater revenue hit that would come from having to downgrade an existing DFW/JFK/MIA-EZE flight.
Plus, I don't know why there is any trade-off between EZE and GIG since the two aren't linked within AA's network, so the planes at one aren't interchangeable with planes at another.
Quoting hardiwv (Reply 9): Great news for EZE one of the top performers in AA network. MIA-EZE can certainly accommodate more supply and AA is doing the right thing. EZE and GRU will have plenty of AA planes resting furing the day!
Just further reinforces the unequaled dominance of Miami when it comes to South America flying from the U.S. Specifically: I don't think we'll be seeing daylight flights from the U.S. to Argentina from any other U.S. gateway anytime soon.
Quoting Skyguy (Reply 10): What about JFK-EZE? I know that during Christmas peak travel time they add on another 767 to make it double daily flights.
They could well do that again. Although, if I remember correctly, part of that was in response to Delta's JFK-EZE flights.
Quoting Skyguy (Reply 10): Any scope to increase the frequency to double daily during the summer time?
That may be a bit too much capacity. If the market could support it, AA would probably be doing it with this move, since - generally speaking - AA is predisposed towards daily flights anyway.
Quoting flyby519 (Reply 11): On a related note, how do you guys get access to that airlineinfo.com website? i tried to fill out the registration form, but it was denied? Am I blacklisted??!!
I've had lots of problems with AirlineInfo.com - technical issues, log-in problems, etc. I've just had to email the support link (info@airlineinfo.com) and it's always been resolved fairly quick. That website is an excellent resource, though - because it automatically monitors what's going on in the industry and collates and organizes it for you. Between that and airlineroute.net, I'm set!
AAEXP From Brazil, joined Jul 2005, 414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 13): well, this news certainly proves that the recipocity fee imposed to US nationals did not have the catastrophic effect some people expected ...
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2295 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 13): well, this news certainly proves that the recipocity fee imposed to US nationals did not have the catastrophic effect some people expected ...
If the Brazilian visa does not produce such damage, i don't know why the fee imposed to US nationals by Argentina would ! As i mentioned before, a visa demands goes to a consulate, while Argentina just impose the same that for example Dominican Republic imposes on a less extent (and cheaper one)
Quoting commavia (Reply 12): I'm not really sure what you're suggesting
To be more clear. AA offer 16F on each MIA-EZE, 32F daily, 214 every week. What's the load factor, i believe no more than 50%. With more 4 flights, 64F we will go to 278F seats per week.
What's look like the additional revenue on F ? In my view, zero.
Of course, it could be filled with upgrades, more Y that goes to C and some C will be awarded F.
Lets see my proposition:
MIA-GIG offers 0F. It's feasible to believe that a market like Rio can sell 64F in a week or at least 50% of that ? I think it's possible. So GIG could SELL 32F.
But what about EZE additional demand ? Easy... AA901 4x weekly MIA-GIG become B772 and MIA-EZE additional flights become B763. EZE still got additional Y and C seats.
In other words, the incremental offer in EZE probably would not generate additional F paid tickets (it's more leisure season, less business and more tourists and this already faces normal offseat on the 2 daily flights) but rather more C and Y.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 15): What's the load factor, i believe no more than 50%.
Try again.
AA's MIA-EZE flights are among the most profitable premium cabins in the airline's entire global network - not only full, but at strong fares as well.
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 15): MIA-GIG offers 0F. It's feasible to believe that a market like Rio can sell 64F in a week or at least 50% of that ? I think it's possible. So GIG could SELL 32F.
But what about EZE additional demand ? Easy... AA901 4x weekly MIA-GIG become B772 and MIA-EZE additional flights become B763. EZE still got additional Y and C seats.
Again, though - you're proposing something that is simply unfeasible.
Why pull 777s off of MIA-EZE when they can support it? If you say that MIA-GIG can support a 777 then fine - that's a different proposition (which I actually agree with). But MIA-EZE undisputably can support F cabins right here, now, today, so there is absolutely no logical reason to pull 777s off MIA-EZE just to put them on MIA-GIG.
You're acting as if AA is having to use additional 777s to fly these new flights MIA-EZE whereas they could - in your view - be used more productively on MIA-GIG. That is a false assumption though: there is no additional 777 being used for these flights that could be used for MIA-GIG. These additional MIA-EZE flights are using the existing 777s that are already flying MIA-GIG, just more efficiently.
Thus, to add a 777 to MIA-GIG - as you propose - would require taking it from somewhere else like MIA-EZE, where it is badly needed.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months ago) and read 1668 times:
Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 18): It does say that it's subject to Goverment approval though. Does that mean it's unofficial yet until AA gets the go ahead?
It's a done deal. While it may still officially be "subject to government approval," it will easily be approved without delay. Argentina has tons of available unused frequencies for U.S. carriers, and no other airline at the moment wants any of them.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 388 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6779 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 684 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
