henpol747
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 5:53 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:18 am


As far as I know Mexicana has only 1 767. Are there any plans to acquire more of these aircrafts?

Hope you can help me on this one!
Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
 
fly727
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:27 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:41 am

Yes. Mexicana plans to close the year with at least a fleet of 4, if not 6 widebodies. Ghost77 should have more information on this subject.

RM  Smile
There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:59 am

Fly 727 is correct except that they are currently analyzing
the A330 instead of the B767 because of the common cockpit with the A320, A319 and the soon to acquire A318's. This way their pilots can fly the 4 Airbus family.

Keep us posted.
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:37 pm

The information that I have is that they will ONLY stay with their 1 763 and won't get anymore of them. Right now they are evaluating the 777 and the A330's.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:13 pm

I think it partly depends on (i) when the elusive flights to European cities start and (ii) the terms of the agreement that MX has with SK. Many threads have been started in connection with this matter and, to summarize, it has been said that more 767ER's will come, they will be used for new routes to European destinations and that they will be eventually replaced by more modern and bigger aircraft, such as 777's, A330's or even A340's.

Does anybody know if MX has decided which cities in Europe it will serve later this year or early in 2005 and if more long-haul routes to/from South America will be started?
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:38 am

Eddiedude,

Again, the info, that I have is that they will start to fly first to the US. The strategy being to compete directly with UAL. The first route is rumored to be IAD or BWI, although IAD is the strong contender. Then SEA, PHL will follow. Probably San Juan, Puerto Rico too. Then, they'll strategize about Europe, but that apparently will happen when they decide wether to go with the A330's, 777's or more 763's, which is the most unlikely. The EZE route with the 763 was sort of a Beta test. They are very happy with the results and the performance of the plane, but the issue is capacity. They've decided they need more capacity than what the 763 can offer. So maybe we will see sooner an A330 or 777 in MX colors than we thought. However, they are definitely not looking at the A340. Personally, I'm praying for some 777's.

Regards,
 
fly727
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:27 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:49 am

A330's would be cool. Training-wise that is a good choice due that the crews are already familiar with the Airbus type of handling.

RM  Smile
There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:55 am

Very interesting AR385, thanks a lot for the info.

The strategy being to compete directly with UAL. The first route is rumored to be IAD or BWI, although IAD is the strong contender.

I think this is very smart. To go squarely against UA sounds like a good plan to me. IAD would be a great addition to MX's route system. Is DCA a domestic-only airport? Perhaps DCA could also be an alternative (better than BWI in my opinion). I was in Washington in 1999 and I flew nonstop to IAD with UA and I remember the ride from IAD to the campus of American University was long. I don't know if DCA is closer to downtown D.C. than Dulles.

SEA, PHL will follow. Probably San Juan, Puerto Rico too.

Didn't MX fly to SEA in the past? I have the impression that they did and that it did not work out very well. I would think that if they fly to YVR from MEx and GDL, and to PDX from GDL and MXL, perhaps SEA is a bit redundant. What do you make of it? PHL is smart move, I think. US had plans to do PHL-MEx using an Airbus A320, but their problems have prevented them from starting it. If MX does it first it would be to their advantage. As for SJU, I just don't know. They did it in the past as an extension of a MEx-CUN or MEx-CZM flight, right? And with the codeshare with AA, MX and AA can probably offer a good connection to SJU from MIA, don't you think?

Then, they'll strategize about Europe, but that apparently will happen when they decide wether to go with the A330's, 777's or more 763's, which is the most unlikely.

Sorry for making such a dumb question but, will they get more 767ER's in the coming months (from SK or from anybody else), or not? I agree that their current 763ER is not very good for them in terms of number of passengers. It carries the same amount of pax as AM's 762ER's and about the same number of passengers that a cattle-car 752 can carry. They definitely should go for something bigger (although I personally love the 2-3-2 configuration of 67's). I think that if CINTRA is sincere in its statements that there will be no merger, MX will likely get A330's for commonality's sake. But yeah, I agree, getting 777's would be a more prestigious move, wouldn't it? About Europe, I think that LHR should be very high in their priority list. I hope LHR will be the first destination in Europe offered by MX.


Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:49 pm

The routes in Europe that I have heard are MAD or BCN then FRA
and possibly Milan.

In the USA I have heard of MCI, STL, DTW, SEA, SJU, Charlotte N.C, PHL,
and JFK

In Canada, Calgary
and in South America,

Quito and Santiago.

This starting December of 2004 and throught 2005.

I strongly believe that they are about to take over AM or merge.
 
JOSEMEX
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 11:44 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:05 pm

Eddie,

>Didn't MX fly to SEA in the past? ... PHL is smart move, I think..... As for SJU, I just don't know. They did it in the past as an extension of a MEx-CUN or MEx-CZM flight, right?<

MX did fly to SEA in the past. They also flew MX), Mexico">MEX-PHL. The MX), Mexico">MEX-SJU flight was nonstop.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:12 pm

will they get more 767ER's in the coming months (from SK or from anybody else), or not?

Sorry AR385, I forgot your earlier posting that they may not get any more 67's. So forget about it, I got it now.

NAVEGA,

I honestly don't know what to make of all these new routes you mention (especially since the rumors of a merger are strongly denied by CINTRA):

MAD - An AM destination. I thought that MX's only plan to enter the Mexico-Spain market was through the codeshare with IB. In fact I recall MX's CEO publicly saying that MAD was not in the cards because it was decided that it should remain an AM destination.

BCN - IB flies BCN-MAD-MEx-MAD-BCN and I don't know if a non-stop MEx-BCN would work. Perhaps it would, due to the number of Catalans in Mexico, but perhaps 3x weekly or something like that.

FRA - I think FRA will definitely happen. LH's load factors are very, very good. The market can definitely support another carrier, and since MX and LH remain codeshare partners, they won't be really competing, but rather cooperating.

MXP - It is a more or less important SkyTeam hub and since it is very clear that AZ won't be flyng to MEx any time soon, it is only logical for AM to offer this route. I just can't imagine how CINTRA would allow MX to offer this route instead of AM (in a no-merger scenario).

MCI - I don't think there is sufficient demand for this service.

STL - It could work because it is an AA hub, right?

DTW - Wasn't AM going to start this route once they got more 73W's? It is a major NW hub (NW already flies DTW-MEx) so, again, I tend to think AM would have a stronger interest in flying this route now that NW will join SkyTeam.

SJU - See reply 7.

CLT - This is a US hub (US is doing CLT-MEx already) and MX does not have any relationship whatsoever with US, so this is strange. Is there sufficient demand to support both US and MX doing this route? I know Charlotte is the home to many huge banks and transnational companies but I still don't know.

PHL - See reply 7.

YYC - Even with the AC codeshare, I don't know if there is sufficient demand for such a route. I would think that connecting in YVR is a good enough option for people from Calgary and surroundings wanting to fly to MX), Mexico">MEX.

UIO - Nice, although in my opinion the pax will be more leisure and ethnic than business, so I don't know if it is a sound business proposition.

SCL - LA flies daily and offers a high-quality product. AM flies 5x weekly and probably its service is good too (if MEx-GRU-MEx, which I have done twice, is an indication, it is good). I don't think there is room for a third carrier in this route, especially because CM is also a good alternative thanks to its attractive fares and smart connection times in PTY. Could it be that AM will drop this route in order to free its 763ER, assign the 763ER to the GRU route and use the 762ER that it currently flies to GRU for more frequencies to MAD or CDG or for a new European destination (or maybe even for LIM now that LANPerú will start flying LIM-MEx 4x weekly using a widebody)?. The rumor of MX starting flights to SCL really makes me wonder what exactly is cooking at CINTRA.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans to acquire more?

Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:21 am

EddieDude,

I must say that you make these forums extemely intersting and make
me look for your answeres and inputs.

I think that Mexicana will expand to most of these cities I mentioned and
I strongly believe that they will take over AM or become the important
airline of the two in CINTRA.

At this point the Airlines that is better run and who is in a better financial
situarion will become the strong one and from everything I have read and
seen, MX seems to be the one.
 
AM772
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:43 am

What I've read in the Airways Magazine, is that it's now a fact that Mexicana will get 3 more B763, to get a fleet of 4, and they are considering the A330 more than the 777 because of their Airbus preference, so I think that Mexicana is getting stronger everyday and AM is going down AGAIN....
Good luck for both and the routes they are planning are Frankfurt, Madrid, Amsterdam, London and some city in Italy, maybe Rome or Milan.
Cheers
AM772
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:18 am

EddieDude,

In the last 10 years, more and more Mexicans and Central Americans are moving to live in the CLT area and sorrounding states, like Southern Virginia, Northern North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee so it definitely would be a good choice for MX to fly this route. Other than that it is a US hub, as you correctly stated, but it´s more a regional one to serve the less populated areas of the Eastern Seaboard. So I believe the competition with MX would be minimal.

AM772,

Again, no more 763´s for MX.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:16 pm

In my opinion LHR is a destination that MX or AM needs to start serving soon. In fact, London should be high in the priority list of almost any airline since it is the most important financial center in Europe. I understand that demand for BA's LHR-MEx flight is very high at the moment and BA cannot increase frequencies unless a Mexican carrier starts operating the route between MEx and LHR (perhaps someone knows if that is part of the agreement between Mexico and the U.K. or something), so there is a huge untapped market.

About the new long-haul planes, if MX has decided to not get any more 767's, then I think we will see it getting A330's for fleet commonality purposes. I am guessing MX would go for the short A330-200... what do you think? According to the a.net database, the A332 can seat up to 293 pax in a two class configuration (although MX would probably have a larger business class so we might see something like 275 pax cabins or something like that). If this becomes a reality, MX will look very similar to JJ, with A32x's for short and medium haul flights and A332's for long haul routes (the difference being the F100's in JJ's fleet and the A318's in MX's fleet).

If MX decides to do MEx-CLT, they may a good chance of having nice loads if the demand exists like AR385 kindly explains, due to the goodwill of the MX brand in the U.S. and its codeshare with AA. The only thing I see is that US has a good f.f. program (Dividend Miles or something like that) and I fear that most business pax will stick to US, while ethnic and leisure travelers will prefer MX. Hopefully MX will find a way to make a profit in spite of this.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
jopavon
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:53 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:25 pm

According to AeroTransport Databank, MX originally intended 2 B763s (ex-SAS) they got one and cancelled the second one. Those are the facts.

On the wish side, hopefully they'll go Airbus 330s and start Europe...

The most likely destinations are LHR (intended since the 80s), FRA (in cooperation with LH) and BCN (where I agree with EddieDude on the 3x).
 
cx340
Posts: 518
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 2:59 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:36 am

In my opinion, the logical solution for MX would be getting A330-200s. They are not as big as the 777, but they have enough range for most European routes. Plus, you get the much discussed cockpit commonality, so you only need MX's pilots to take simpler (and therefore cheaper, I suppose) conversion courses. I also suppose that the A330-200 is cheaper than a 777, at least in normal retail values.

I guess the problem, however, is how fast can they get these aircraft. The A330, specially the 200 series, seems to be a very popular aircraft with world airlines. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't many A330s sitting unused in the desert or just held by the leasing companies without use, and getting them directly from Airbus would take some time, I guess.



 
XA744
Posts: 630
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:40 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:59 am

CX340, you are absolutely right.

I also consider the A330 being the most suitable airliner for MX in view of the imminent addition of transatlantic operations to its network. Having in mind aircraft acquisition or leasing costs, together with crew training and maintenance , going A330 and phasing out the 767´s is the wise thing to do.

I just hope MX really comes up with a well furnished aircraft. For instance, an state of the art IFE is absolutely necessary in order to become truly competitive across the Atlantic. I also would get rid of that "Clase Ejecutiva" name which sounds cheap and of course unattractive. Bring back "Azteca de Oro " or "Golden Aztec" please !

Regards
No matter how you fly...just never get your wings clipped !
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:52 pm

This far all I've heard is that MX intend to open four destination in the US., two in Canada, one in the Carribean and one more in South America.

This far the first announcement has been made. MX will launch flights to Varadero. I was expecting another destination in the Carribean but at the end its a new route and maybe they'll open the other one also.

At the same time next April 5th MX will start running charters to La Romana. And got intentions to start charter flights to Santo Domingo.

As for the long haul fleet, I was told that its very highly that MX will step from the 767 to the A330. Hence, the reason of why they are not getting more 767s.

Ricardo APM  Smile

Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:00 am

I wonder what those new U.S. destinations will be. I am betting IAD is one of them (MEx-IAD is a route that UA has all for itself, so I wish MX will put some pressure). I hope to see MX flying to DFW too. Although now that AA and MX have decided to codeshare, this might not happen and, if it does, this might not lower the high fares that AA charges in this route that it almost monopolizes (I prefer AM over AA but they only have one daily flight, at very inconvenient times and using an MD-87). On second thoughts, AM is the one who should add at least one more daily MEx-DFW flight.

As for Canada, I guess Calgary and Edmonton are the new routes (or could it be Calgary and Ottawa), but I fear there is not sufficient demand for non-stop flights between Mexico and those cities... even with a 2x or 3x weekly frequency. Perhaps the idea is to do a XXX-MEx-CUN itinerary or something like that, don't you think?

The fact that they are adding a new South American destination is very cool. I don't know when this route will be launched but I guess that, since MX won't be getting any more widebodies soon, this new destination will be a not-so-far city... I am betting UIO. An A319 or A320, depending on the demand, would suffice. Any ideas?
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
FLYACYYZ
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:13 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:42 am

Can see MX expanding it's operations in Canada, but not expanding cities served. Based on market demand could see the following:

YYZ-MX), Mexico">MEX (from 5 weekly to daily) They've dicked around with frequency and times since day 1.
YYZ-CUN
YUL-CUN
YVR-CUN
YVR-PVR

Calgary is a remote possibility to generate sufficient traffic. YOW & YEG --not at this point in time.
Above and Beyond
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:56 am

On the contrary.

Calgary is an important ENERGY business hub. For two countries whose energy industry is as important a part of their GDP as it is for Mexico and Canada, it would not surprise me if Calgary becomes a new MX destination. Calgary is home to TransCanada for example who has some business with PEMEX and with many other small energy industry goods suppliers in Mexico. There are also other energy companies in Calgary that constantly send engineers to Mexico and Vice-Versa for courses, consultancy work, etc. This is why the CO flights from IAH to Calgary have become so successful. If to that type of traffic you add the leisure part, I believe you have some potential, for at least filling up an A-319 5 times x week or more. Besides, he who doesn't risk, doesn't win. MX should be more risk taking and more agressive when planning potential routes.

Routes to Ecuador will work, basically because of all the Ecuadoreans who study in Mexico, both from Quito and Guayaquil, plus the leisure traffic and the "I'm just here to cross the river traffic". Guayaquil also has the potential for becoming a natural hub in South America, in competition with Lima. I agree with EddieDude, I believe routes to Ecuador would work for MX. Remember that for many years we had the Ecuatoriana beautiful, pshycodelic 720's and later their less physodelic but still striking DC-10's and A-313 flying to MX), Mexico">MEX at least 3 to 4 times x week. So the market is there. Plus, TAME is no competition as they have a serious safety problems.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:04 am

So if people seem to agree that YYC is one of the new destinations, which will the second, new, Canadian city be? I don't see another one with sufficient business potential. Maybe, as FLYACYYZ suggests, its a new non-stop flight to an existing Canadian destination from a city in Mexico other than Mexico City. If this is the case, then I would say it is CUN-YUL, because AC already offers a daily, non-stop flight between CUN and YYZ, doesn't it?

I hope all this information will be made public soon, this is so exciting!!!
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
FLYACYYZ
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:13 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:14 pm

To the MX experts:

Why is YYZ service not sustainable on a daily basis? Since its inception, MX has done morning, afternoon, and evening service. They've gone from daily to weekends only, and now back to 5 daily morning departures.

Why does MX even bother with EWR, which I believe operates only 4 days a week, and at very off peak hours??

Above and Beyond
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Mon Mar 29, 2004 4:47 am

FLYACYYZ, the last time I checked, MX was doing 5 weekly non-stops between MEx and YYZ as you well say, leaving YYZ in the morning and leaving MEx on its way back in the early afternoon. In addition, AC is doing the same route on a 7x weekly basis with very similar schedules... maybe the market cannot support more than 12 weekly non-stop flights. In addition, perhaps die hard AM/DL fliers are willing to connect in ATL or JFK, and AA fliers are willing to connect in DFW for the miles, so there is competition from U.S. carriers too. And I can also think that MX maybe has a shortage of A319's for some other important routes and that's why YYZ gets MX service only 5x weekly.

About EWR, I also wonder why MX is so weak in the highly demanded and highly profitable MEx-NYC market. The last time I checked, it was flying MEx-EWR 3x weekly using an A319. It doesn't make any sense to me. AM has 14 weekly flights to JFK on 752's and DL has at least 7 weekly also on a 752. In addition, CO serves very well the MEx-EWR route since EWR is one of its hubs (I don't know how many times a week, but definitely 7 at least). I do not think the off-peak hours of the MX flights are that bad, though. Actually I really like MX's times because you don't lose daylight hours flying. Now that CO has joined the DL/AM alliance and that is close to becoming a SkyTeam member, the vast majority of the traffic in the MEx-NYC route will be served by SkyTeam carriers, so I definitely see MX adding more frequencies (hopefully). And, as someone said, maybe fly to JFK instead of EWR too, in order to benefit from AA feeding, who does not fly non-stop between the two cities.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:16 am

EddieDude

The reason MX flights into EWR are measly is because aside from CO's hub, EWR is an O&D destination for the Newark metro area and New Jersey communities to the West. These are ethnic European communities who choose Newark as their airport to go visit their relatives back in Europe, as opposed to JFK that can well be a further hour away. Southern New Jersey uses PHL as their airport. There are few Mexicans in the New Jersey catchment area. They all are in the Manhattahn, Brooklin etc..area and those use JFK. And as you said, the business market will use either JFK and LGA and will even connect in DFW, IAH or ATL from their mile addiction, which I suffer from too, by the way. They are also the ones who use EWR. So, MX offers little incentive other than a straight flight from A to B. In these days it's not enough. I'm sure if MX went back to JFK they will get more loads, even with all the competition.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:32 am

This is interesting. Thanks a lot for the input AR385. The thing is that I still don't get it. Just as I find the schedules attractive, I believe a lot of leisure and business travelers would do too (at least the Mexicans). My last two trips to New York City have been during the 2003 15 de septiembre and Thanksgiving "puentes", and I have taken AM 404 in the afternoon to JFK and different flights on my way back, and I always wonder why AM or DL does not offer a red-eye JFK-MEx. To me that would be awesome because it would give me the chance of coming back, say, on Monday morning before dawn, and I would still have the chance to spend the whole Sunday afternoon/evening in Manhattan (just like the GRU-MEx red-eye leaving GRU around midnight) with my buddies who live there. The reason why I did not choose MX on those occasions was that there were no Wednesday flights but, otherwise, with a similar fare, I would have seriously considered the possibility.

A second thought is that maybe it is more expensive and less convenient to get to/from EWR to Manhattan. I flew CO non-stop to EWR in 1997 with my Dad but, since he paid for the cabs, I did not care about that. I don't know if there is a convenient and fast public transportation link between EWR and Manhattan, but I am sure that EWR taxis do not charge a flat fare to Manhattan (and if they do, it is way more expensive than the flat fare from JFK). If a public transportation link is missing, then maybe that is another reason why MX is weak in the MEx-EWR route (although, then, how do you explain CO's success?... or, is it really a success or not really?, is it an O&D route or, more likely, does it serve the purpose of providing CO's fliers with connections to the northeast U.S., eastern Canada and Europe?). JFK, on the other hand is very convenient. The shuttle costs 13 bucks or so and takes you to Grand Central Station non-stop every thirty minutes. Taxicabs charge a flat rate of $35 from JFK to anywhere in Manhattan (plus tunnel tolls if applicable), so that is also very convenient (I don't mind paying 40 bucks to get to Manhattan in a cab at all and, in any case, there are no more shuttle buses after the arrival of AM 404 in JFK so it's not like I have a choice). And if you are a real cheapskate, you can take a cab to the Jamaica station of the Long Island Railroad and then take a train to Madison Square Garden (Penn Station), or the subway all the way from JFK to your final destination in Manhattan (although I have been told that doing so takes hours).

What I think is that MX should move to JFK (just like in the past) and it would be able to attract more passengers. I think fares between MEx and JFK could go down a little bit (around 10%), and a move of MX from EWR to JFK might have that result. In addition, MX would be able to connect its passengers with AA flights departing from JFK and viceversa.

Of course the best would be for all flights to NYC from MEx to land in LGA, but I am aware that that ain't gonna happen.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:39 am

Eddiedude

EWR does have an excellente cheap link to Manhattan. It think it's sort of like a speed rail but I haven't taken it so far. There are also cheap shuttle buses to downtown Manhattan. Cabs also offer a flat-fee plus fares, so I don't believe that now transportation to and from Manhattan is an issue. I think it's like you said, it's an excellent point for connecting US passengers to the Eastern US, Canada and Europe. So successful in fact that CO only added frequencies to JFK from IAH in the last three years and I believe only two a day.

I think the issue is what I proposed earlier. No O&D for MX from the New Jersey area and mileage hoarding passengers on CO.
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:25 pm

I haven't been told what will be MX flights to Canada but....... I can think on Calgary and Hamilton. With the time I think MX will start flying more and more frequent to these two destinations.

Last year MX did several charters to Calgary and I really don't know what a MX 757 was doing yesterday at YHM.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Vanderheyden



About EWR I think MX still flies to EWR in order to keep Aviacsa away from EWR or JFK. MX and AM team up on this route! MX doesn't care if AM is taking all the traffic..... as long as AM stays away from ORD MX doesn't say anything!

Ricardo APM  Smile

Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
CAL
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:33 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:55 pm

Ghost,
Just wanted to let you know that AeroMexico already serves ORD.....
CAL........Continental Airlines....... Work Hard, Fly Right
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:02 pm

CAL,

Yes, AM serves ORD from MEx 2x a day compared to MX..... 10x a day or more from several points in Mexico.... they amost have a complete terminal for their selves at peak hours! And AM flies that route for obvious reasons..... just to keep Aviacsa away from the MEx-ORD market!

Remember the Mexico/US bilateral agreement....

No more than two carriers from each country can fly any city pair between the two countries.

Hence, Aviacsa got no other choice than flying to ORD with a stop at MTY. A stop at MTY means more flying time and that equals less passengers flying Aviacsa than if they flew direct from MEx. But Aviacsa just can't fly the route from MEx! Unfortunately by the time Taesa left and leave all those routes AM was in better conditions to take some routes left by TEJ., by that time Aviacsa was not as strong as it is now.

Ricardo APM  Smile

Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:10 am

MX was in Hamilton doing charter flights. It has been doing
these charter flights for the past 5 years.

MX will fly to JFK instead of EWR or maybe both by this
December.

AM will pull out of ORD for 180 days and then return with
2 flight a week in order to keep AVIACSA out of the MX), Mexico">MEX
route.

Both AM and AVIACSA are doing poorly with the ORD routes.

This is the latest news.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:13 am

MX will fly to JFK instead of EWR or maybe both by this December.

Has this been confirmed NAVEGA? I am sure that if MX increases frequencies to New York, it will have good loads, since the route is highly demanded. Maybe it needs to do some marketing to create more awareness of the existence of the service. And moving to JFK will certainly help too because it can connect with AA flights. Do you think, however, that it is an option for MX to serve both airports? I would think it would involve high costs and would not be worth it.

I also have a question on the bilateral and the city-pairs. Does the restriction of "only 2 U.S. carriers and 2 Mexican carriers doing a non-stop route" apply to airport pairs or city pairs? Example: New York City-2 international airports EWR and JFK. Can you have 2 U.S. and 2 Mexican carriers flying to JFK and two different carriers of each country flying to EWR? After all, JFK is in New York state, while EWR is in New Jersey. How does this work in Los Angeles, for example? If JFK and EWR both count as one city under the bilateral, shouldn't ONT count as Los Angeles' second airport too?

AM will pull out of ORD for 180 days and then return with
2 flight a week in order to keep AVIACSA out of the MEx
route.

Both AM and AVIACSA are doing poorly with the ORD routes.


Is that so? Only 2x weekly from the current 8+ weekly? Wow, I did not see that one coming. I did ORD-MEx-ORD many times with AM while during 2002-2003 and I recall that loads were always good. This is bad news.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:16 am

EddieDude,

Yes the JFK is official, but what is not is if they also fly to
EWR. I hope they fly to JFK only. AM has a code share with
CO so they will do well in EWR and MX with AA which should do well for them in JFK. Lets see what finally happens as too if they both switch airports or if AM flys to
both.

I am now too sure with your questions on the bilaterals but will investigate especially about cities with more than one airport.

AM had full loads, but if you read the papers, they wanted to look good or better than MX at whatever cost and that is
what happened in ORD.

Full flights at very low, almost charter prices. I have been
told that out of all the cities that all the airlines fly to Mexico, only the ORD/MX), Mexico">MEX/ORD flights are loosing money and that it is because of Aeromexicos constant lowering of the prices. This includes AA and UA flights.

Hopefully AM will concentrate on making money and not at wanting to look better than MX.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:36 am

Thanks so much for the info. Although MX should and will move to JFK, I am not sure if AM should move to EWR just because of the codeshare with CO. I don't know if AM gets a lot of traffic from DL in JFK (probably not), but I think it has an established presence in JFK (everybody knows that AM flies to/from JFK) and I don't think that the coexistence of both airlines in the same airport would mean lower passenger loads for either one or both. As you can see from my previous questions, I have no clue if EWR is more convenient than JFK for Manhattanites and for Mexicans visiting Manhattan, but if it is exactly the same in terms of commuting time and transporation cost to fly to/from EWR than to/from JFK, then my vote is for AM to stay put in JFK.

In connection with the ORD flights, I can understand that AM is losing a lot of money. I recall getting good fares to MEx on AM when I lived in Chicago (I even got a one-way ORD-MEx for less than U.S.$260, taxes and charges included last summer) so maybe AM had constantly very good loads but always at a loss. I hope that AM takes whatever action is needed in order to fix this problem, but it will be sad to see AM in ORD only 2x weekly.

Finally, a question more related to the title of the thread: Will MX ever send a widebody to ORD? I ask because its loads are very good and evidently MEx-ORD-MEx is one of MX's most profitable routes, so maybe it would be convenient for MX to send a widebody to ORD as part of the mix of aircraft it uses in its flights thereto from several Mexican cities. Yeah, of course they would first have to get some more widebodies, but assuming they get several next year, could ORD be a good place to send one of them? Or could MX alternate the flights of the 763ER -when not flying to EZE- between LAX and ORD? It would be cool to see ORD as one of the cities in the 763ER rotation.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:10 am

Dude,

I think it wouldn't be smart if MX rotated their 767 to ORD.. just for one reason.... there's a very small difference pax between the 57 (181) and 67 (184) .... if they could fly only 57s into ORD and no Airbus operations into that station that would be awesome!

BTW. 30 mins ago saw an ex. Avianca B767-300ER landing at MEx. No titles, no paint belongs to leasor Anset and its going to Mexicana's mx base. And we have to possibilities.... 1. It's going to another company. 2. And the less possible..... but still a possibility... will be MX's second B767-300ER!!!

Ricardo APM  Smile

Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:47 am

Oh, I see. I was thinking that only Airbuses flew the MEx-ORD route... how could I forget that the 752's are also used. I agree that it doesn't make sense as Ghost explains since MX's 752's are configured for virtually the same number of pax as the ex-SK 763ER (except for business class, but I guess the demand for business-class seats in the route is not that big, so it wouldn't justify such a move either). But would an A332 (in the event MX bought/leased some A332's next year) make sense in ORD? What do you think?

Interesting that an unpainted 763ER arrived in MX's base today. AR385 has made it clear that MX will get no more 67's (although the new CEO might have had a change of heart), so I wonder who it is for. Ghost and everybody else, please let us know.

Finally, a clarification. Some posts above I made some comments in connection with the possibility of MX flying to either IAD or BWI. I did not know that BWI is actually closer to downtown Washington D.C. than IAD. Now that I know that, my opinion is that BWI would be a fantastic addition to MX's routemap. I would even say it is a no-brainer. And since MX is no longer a partner of UA, OS and BD, I don't see the point of flying to IAD, which is an important Star Alliance hub.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:01 pm

Eddiedude,

Look at reply 27.

Delta has an international hub in JFK, so AM will fit nicely in the strategy of Skyteam. AA has an international minihub, so it would be interesting to see the competition with both airlines serving JFK.

BWI is not closer to downtown DC than IAD. I've flown out of IAD, BWI and Ronald Reagan National (don't know the code, maybe it's DCA) when I lived in Central Virginia. The ideal thing woould be for MX to get a deal with the DOT whereas it can put its planes in DCA, like AirCanada does. Mexico should be more aggresive in negotiating this. It's not possible that two nations with such an intense relation as Mexico and the US can't service the DC area more conveniently for all the diplomats, bankers, ministers, etc.

I still think they won't get anymore 763's. It makes no sense if they don't launch more routes for them. Europe? the SK 763 have an even less powerful engine than the AM 763 so if AM has trouble getting XA-APB into Europe, imagine MX. Furthermore, let's see if they keep it, now that the high season for the Argentine vacationers it's over. It will be a good idea, though to use it in high density domestic routes an medium range routes, like ORD, LAX, SFO. That white 763 Ghost saw is probably there for maintenance or maybe they'll exchange their current 763 with that one, on account of the engine. Who knows.
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:14 pm

Dude,

A332s to ORD..... my opinion..... too big for a 'short route'! Why? MX Dc10s leave the fleet and for a long time MX stayed with no wide bodies and at the same time a lot of american carriers with regular service to Mexico in the beggining of the 90s stopped sending wide bodies.... why? Because it was not the same as the 80s were. In the 90s what people wanted and still wants... and probably x2..... are more flights from an airline to a destination with a flights departing every hour or something like that... (you get the idea right?)

For ex. MX in the early 90s sent their Dc10s to LAX from MEx every 4 hours offering 4 flights a day.... Today, MX offers 8 flights at different hours... (that was just an example, dont know what were the exact frequencies in the 90s and today, but that's what kind of happened) pax today fly the route with the best schedule that fits to their neccessities. And that is equal to offering less seats therefore you have a big short-medium haul planes fleet. As an example MX has 42 buses! And add the 10 coming with the same range as the other buses.. I'm sure MX will send the 318 to the USA.

A332s for a charter division (and with a high density config) flying from the US to Mexican resorts... YES.
A332s for Mexicana flying out of MEx to Canada and Carribean (Cuba, Dominicana) during heavy seasons... YES.
A332s for MExicana for long haul routes.... YES.
Maybe 2 or 3 A332s configured with a high density tourist class and a few (20) Ejecutiva seats for high density routes...... could work.

Truth MX was not receiving more 767s, in fact it was a big surprise and unexpected visitor for me.... also I was told that MX was studying the possibility to step from the 67 to the 330 directly! It would be really rare if MX takes that 767.

IAD... the only reason I could think of right now in case MX opens the route... would be just to make UA's suffer in the route!

BWI... expect MX or AM flying to this destination.

Ricardo APM  Smile



[Edited 2004-04-01 04:25:03]
Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:08 pm

So many things to discuss!!!

AR385, I agree that with both carriers flying to JFK we will see strong competition (if MX does something about its frequencies) and maybe I need to fly to EWR the next time I go to New York to see if it would work for AM to move there. I will write more about MX and JFK below. About MX and Washington, somebody in a separate thread claimed BWI was closer to downtown D.C. than IAD and I believed it (I have been in IAD twice in the past and I remember it was a long ride to D.C. but I have never been to BWI). Now that you have clarified the point (thanks by the way), I must agree with you that DCA would be an optimal destination for MX but, unfortunately, I do not see that happening. The reason why DCA gets flights from Canada while being a "domestic" airport is that passengers flying from Canada to the U.S. pre-clear immigration and customs in Canada (I have done that in YUL going to ATL and in YYZ going to DFW). Only when hell freezes over will we see U.S. Homeland Security and Customs people stamping passports, taking fingerprints and checking bags in Mexican airports as an everyday matter. I do not think it would be "a violation of sovereignty" or a bad thing at all (actually I can think of a number of good reasons), but try to convince our Congressmen and politicians. Finally, in connection with your 763ER comments, I agree with you. Despite the low-density seat configuration of the ex-SK 763ER, MX is never going to make it to Europe with that plane because of the engines. I just hope MX does not stop the flights to EZE now that, as you say, the Argentines' high season is over. I am sure there has to be a market year-round between MEx and EZE.

Ghost, as always, your postings are full of so many interesting issues. I sure understand that people want a variety of schedules, but I think a Mexican airline could also lower some costs and maximize profits by sending a widebody to a very demanded destination in the U.S. (ORD and IAH come to my mind) at a time of the day when demand is high (as you well say, with a high-density configuration, not like the circa 180 pax 763ER). After all, AA sends one A300-600 to MEx from MIA and back every day with very good loads, right? Anyway, I guess that if 98% of the flights between Mexico and the U.S. are in narrowbodies there must be a good reason for that. On the other hand, I hope we will see A332's in MX's fleet soon and, more important, that we will see new long-haul destinations. I insist that LHR would be a great first European city for MX. Finally, regarding Washington, I just want to add to my previous comments that UA definitely needs competition and that the route is, at the moment, underserved (recently a friend from D.C. flew AA to MEx via DFW from DCA just becasue she did not want to fly UA... the bad part is that her flight landed late in DFW and she missed her connection to MEx), so hopefully we will see MX and/or AM in IAD and/or BWI soon!!!

The last thing I wanted to say is that I got an e-mail from a regular visitor of a.net who is not a member and, therefore, cannot post. His name is Erick and he is from Querétaro. He basically explained to me that MX moved to EWR from JFK after de Prévoisin took over MX. The idea was to leave the market all to AM but maintain MX flying to New York City (even with low loads) in order to keep other Mexican carriers away from the route (and to justify a liquidation of MX later on, which was part of de Prevoisin's plans according to Erick). Erick further explained that, after MX joined Star, it tried to make the best out of EWR and tried to adapt the schedule (departing MEx in the morning at some point) in order to facilitate connections with other Star Alliance members but this was never successful since JFK was still a better place for connections and because MX could offer good connections with OS, BD, SK, LH and UA in ORD. Lastly, Erick mentioned that MX's schedule to EWR is not attractive to businesspeople, who make up for the majority of the passengers in this route (and not ethnic travelers like in other routes like ORD or LAX). Erick's e-mail is erickhaw@prodigy.net.mx (I hope he doesn't mind me disclosing it) and I want to say thanks for his info. My only comment has to do with the schedules (I have said this twice before, so sorry that I insist so much); I understand business travelers are entitled to be more "picky" about many things related to flying because they traditionally pay higher fares. At least in my area of business, though, time is really of the essence and I find that a EWR-MEx red-eye is one of the most amazing things that could exist; sure, out of the 10-11 times I have been in New York all but two have been leisure and the other two were not really business, but quasi-business, but I can definitely see me the next time (doesn't make a difference if it is a leisure or a business trip) flying back from EWR during the night so that I can be in the office the next day at 9:00 without losing an afternoon/evening in Manhattan. Again, that's just me and maybe nobody else shares my opinion.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
XAAAM
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:32 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:22 pm

As far as I know they will recieve 3 more 767-300, actually I saw one all white landing this afternoon in MEX, and then saw it in their mainteinance base.
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:58 pm

XAAAM

Check reply 15.

I find it highly doubtful that they will get more 763's. They have not announced routes for them. Check my reply 37 to EddieDude.
 
ghost77
Posts: 4461
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:22 am

Dude,

I think a Mexican airline could also lower some costs and maximize profits by sending a widebody to a very demanded destination in the U.S. (ORD and IAH come to my mind) at a time of the day when demand is high (as you well say, with a high-density configuration, not like the circa 180 pax 763ER).

Absolutely.... a B767 to LAX, ORD, HAV, VRD, YYZ, YVR, and maybe YUL from MX could work! AM 767s to LAX, JFK, MCO from AM could work very well!

the bad part is that her flight landed late in DFW and she missed her connection to MEx)

You sure she missed her flight? There are 10 frequenices all day long with AA from DFW!!  Big thumbs up

DFW could also work but the problem is AA as I explained, AA got 10 daily flights to MEx with a mix of MD80s and B738., important hub for AA very difficult to compete! AM definetly should switch that route with MX and MX then start flying the A320s!

MIA could also work.... in fact they are now sending 2 A300s and sometimes its a B767.. (1 in the morning., and the common A300 in the afternoon).

What MX and AM should do in DFW and MIA is slowly increase capacity and step from A320s/MD80s to 757s. Remember that 757s MX and AM got almost the same capacity as the B767s.

MX is never going to make it to Europe with that plane because of the engines

MX could make it to Europe with the ex SK. Engines of MXB are PW4060... from MEx he could make it to CDG or MAD with no problem because of its pax config. B767 range with PW4060s is 5,875n.m. MEx-LHR in distance is 4,815n.m. MEx-FRA 5,165nm, could be a problem in case he have strong winds while crossing.

Dude if you are interested of knowing more about this issue go to this link (http://www.portalaviacion.com/foro2/nathread.cfm?threadid=316&messages=26) A discussion of MXB vs. APB and more!

AR385, I think XAAAM was refering to the 3 B767s AM is getting this year! In fact the first its scheduled for April. They will not open more routes but they indeed are increasing freq to GRU, SCL, MAD and CDG.

Ricardo APM  Smile



[Edited 2004-04-01 20:28:38]
Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
 
navega
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 10:58 pm

RE: Mexicana´s 767-300. Plans To Acquire More?

Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:08 pm

I don't thing the B767 is for Mexicana. They are seriously
looking at Quito and to Spain. I believe MAD but not sure
as it could be Barelona also. This only if there is immediate
demand and they do not have to loose money.
I also heard that they want a major expansion in the USA
first before heading for Europe. Apparently they make more
money in Europe than AM and they don't even fly there. Everything is via connections in the USA. That sounds interesting and I believe it is true as they constantly win awards in Europe as the best Latin American airlines and they don't actually fly there.


Rumor has it that they are looking at A330's or A340's due
compatability with A320/A319 and A318 cockpit crews.

This is all very interesting and I wish them well. As someone put it recently, they hold a special place in
our hearts. The airline that our grandparents and our parents flew.

Their new (young) Director is apparently very much into
making MX a stronger airline.

Hopefully this will happen soon, as I will buy a ticket and
fly their next new widebodies from whatever city they start.

Who is online