first of all: LAX-RAR, i know NZ flies 777 on this route and my question is why?! is this a tourist attraction?buiness?
also SEA-CHS, its also a very strange route especially with the distance between those two cities.
last one is DTW-GRU, does this route relates to car buisnesses between the two cities?
also how are the load factors on those flights?

usflyer123 wrote:

first of all: LAX-RAR, i know NZ flies 777 on this route and my question is why?! is this a tourist attraction?buiness?
also SEA-CHS, its also a very strange route especially with the distance between those two cities.
last one is DTW-GRU, does this route relates to car buisnesses between the two cities?
also how are the load factors on those flights?

SEA-CHS has something to do with Boeing's presence at both ends.

NZ flies a 763 on LAX-RAR.

DTW-GRU was added by DL for auto industry connections between the two cities. It was started not too long after the merger and is still around.

usflyer123 wrote:

first of all: LAX-RAR, i know NZ flies 777 on this route and my question is why?!

Rarotonga is part of the Cook Islands and Cook islanders are New Zealand citizens with NZ passports (although noted as Cook Island nationals). While the Cooks run their own internal affairs, NZ looks after the foreign affairs and defence and the islands have strong financial and historical links with NZ.

The indigenous language is a recognisable form of the Maori language in New Zealand. There is considerable VFR traffic between the Cooks and Auckland where there is a huge community - it is the nearest big city to many of the islands and some islands (the Tokelau Islands) are NZ territory and others, such as Niue, are run in free association with NZ. So Auckland has been called "the capital of Polynesia."

Most of all, Rarotonga is a tropical vacation destination which has huge tourist traffic especially during the New Zealand winter.

mariner

SEA-CHS has something to do with Boeing's presence at both ends.[/quote]
Yes, SEA-CHS has everything to do with the plant in CHS. The Boeing traffic offered a baseline guarantee of business and the non-stop has stimulated some VFR traffic. I believe that AS flies a 737-700 so they have limited seats to fill and can charge a decent price premium for the nonstop.

LAX-RAR is usually a 763 with an occasional 777 during peak periods.

I do remember reading somewhere that the route is subsidized by the cook islands, but unsure if this is still true.

MKIAZ wrote:

LAX-RAR is usually a 763 with an occasional 777 during peak periods.

I do remember reading somewhere that the route is subsidized by the cook islands, but unsure if this is still true.

i also think it might be subsidized by cook or new zealand because it seems like a pretty strange route!

usflyer123 wrote:

I do remember reading somewhere that the route is subsidized by the cook islands, but unsure if this is still true.

i also think it might be subsidized by cook or new zealand because it seems like a pretty strange route![/quote]

]I don't know why you think it is a "strange" route. Rarotonga is a beautiful tropical island and there is market for those who want a stopover on such islands between the US and Down Under.

It is subsidised because it is too important to the Cooks to lose, partly because of cargo - especially tuna.

mariner

piedmont762 wrote:

DTW-GRU was added by DL for auto industry connections between the two cities. It was started not too long after the merger and is still around.

And also since DL has a hub at DTW.

dfwjim1 wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

DTW-GRU was added by DL for auto industry connections between the two cities. It was started not too long after the merger and is still around.

And also since DL has a hub at DTW.

That doesn't do much to explain it. It is the only S America service by DL from DTW. MSP is a hub, too, and sees no S America service. It is likely the number of daily travelers connecting at DTW who couldn't connect to ATL-GRU is pretty small. No, IMHO it exists for DTW O&D on negotiated business cabin fares.

DTW to GRU totally makes sense.
there is a huge vested interest in Brazilian companies in the U.S. auto industry and many suppliers, along with interest in Great Lakes Shipping.

MIflyer12 wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

DTW-GRU was added by DL for auto industry connections between the two cities. It was started not too long after the merger and is still around.

And also since DL has a hub at DTW.

That doesn't do much to explain it. It is the only S America service by DL from DTW. MSP is a hub, too, and sees no S America service. It is likely the number of daily travelers connecting at DTW who couldn't connect to ATL-GRU is pretty small. No, IMHO it exists for DTW O&D on negotiated business cabin fares.

It was a strategic addition that's been around for quite a few years now. Definitely the business traffic on the route supports it.

Re SEA-CHS AS flies a 737-700 so they have limited seats to fill and can charge a decent price premium for the nonstop. quote

AS will put a 900 to CHS sometimes. As a regular user of this route (15 round trips per year) my experience is it's usually DL who is getting the revenue premium (your mileage may vary). But with service only 4 days a week, it seldom meets my schedule. Using my Delta Skymiles AMEX card for BOB on AS always generates some good natured kidding.

also i forgot to ask about GRU-LFW, why does ET keep flying that route? i mean i saw a video of this flight and the load factors were ridiculously low! i really dont understand who flies this route.does it only exists because of TOGO's proximity to BRAZIL?

usflyer123 wrote:

also i forgot to ask about GRU-LFW, why does ET keep flying that route? i mean i saw a video of this flight and the load factors were ridiculously low! i really dont understand who flies this route.does it only exists because of TOGO's proximity to BRAZIL?

The route is ADD-LFW-GRU. ADD is a hot and high airport meaning significant payload restrictions out of ADD on longer routes. ET chose to take a stop in West Africa to minimize these payload restrictions. They use LFW since it's a regional hub for them. They have a subsidiary based in LFW called ASKY with connections 19 cities in West Africa.

Dusseldorf to Fort Myers Florida on Air Berlin, over 20 years and running.

Anchorage to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on Yakutia Airlines.

Caracas to Tehran on Conviasa ("terror flight" now cancelled)

keitherson wrote:

Dusseldorf to Fort Myers Florida on Air Berlin, over 20 years and running.

someone said this one was nearly explicitly for VFR purposes for the german diaspora there. kinda the same way RJ runs AMM-DTW. or AI doing DEL-BHX. A major failure in VFR history was TAP trying to do LIS-BRU-MFM then LIS-BKK-MFM ... flopped like no tomorrow.

and if not for the (previous now dried up) oil traffic, IAH-SVG would make nearly no sense without the proper context.

United's GUM-CNS (I think it's already been cancelled) always seemed a bit weird to me. What was the reason behind it?

evanb wrote:

usflyer123 wrote:

also i forgot to ask about GRU-LFW, why does ET keep flying that route? i mean i saw a video of this flight and the load factors were ridiculously low! i really dont understand who flies this route.does it only exists because of TOGO's proximity to BRAZIL?

The route is ADD-LFW-GRU. ADD is a hot and high airport meaning significant payload restrictions out of ADD on longer routes. ET chose to take a stop in West Africa to minimize these payload restrictions. They use LFW since it's a regional hub for them. They have a subsidiary based in LFW called ASKY with connections 19 cities in West Africa.

I think they're flying ADD-GRU nonstop now.

a380787 wrote:

IAH-SVG would make nearly no sense without the proper context.

Isn't that the case for every route? LHR-JFK makes sense given the financial industry and the fact that both are major population centers. This route would make nearly no sense without the proper context.

usflyer123 wrote:

first of all: LAX-RAR, i know NZ flies 777 on this route and my question is why?! is this a tourist attraction?buiness?

There might be considerable cargo on this route as well as what others have mentioned.

SonOfABeech wrote:

I think they're flying ADD-GRU nonstop now.

No, they tried non-stop for a while but added the stop back (since 21 May 2016).

a380787 wrote:

keitherson wrote:

Dusseldorf to Fort Myers Florida on Air Berlin, over 20 years and running.

someone said this one was nearly explicitly for VFR purposes for the german diaspora there. kinda the same way RJ runs AMM-DTW. or AI doing DEL-BHX. A major failure in VFR history was TAP trying to do LIS-BRU-MFM then LIS-BKK-MFM ... flopped like no tomorrow.

DUS-RSW isn't for the German diaspora; it's for German tourists who flock to Florida's beaches. I'm not sure how much TP was targeting VFR on LIS-MFM as opposed to some political and business traffic, though they do manage to run OPO-EWR on VFR traffic.

stlgph wrote:

DTW to GRU totally makes sense.
there is a huge vested interest in Brazilian companies in the U.S. auto industry and many suppliers, along with interest in Great Lakes Shipping.

It makes plenty of sense you're right. Now with the visa ban, many of the 2nd-3rd generation Brazilian's that live in the SE Michigan area and around are wanting to travel to Brazil, and DL's partnership makes it a lot easier with GOL.

Coal wrote:

a380787 wrote:

IAH-SVG would make nearly no sense without the proper context.

Isn't that the case for every route? LHR-JFK makes sense given the financial industry and the fact that both are major population centers. This route would make nearly no sense without the proper context.

Actually, LHR-JFK would exist with or without the financial industrial ties. That part is just to explain the front-heavy configuration used on this route. Now if you wanna talk about LCY-JFK, then yes that's mostly due to the financial industries.

As for HKG-TPE's dominance (as the single largest international city pair), one has to trace back to the old days when China-Taiwan nonstop flights were forbidden to see where it all started.

keitherson wrote:

Dusseldorf to Fort Myers Florida on Air Berlin, over 20 years and running.

Anchorage to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on Yakutia Airlines.

Caracas to Tehran on Conviasa ("terror flight" now cancelled)

Germans love Sanibel/Captiva!

evanb wrote:

SonOfABeech wrote:

I think they're flying ADD-GRU nonstop now.

No, they tried non-stop for a while but added the stop back (since 21 May 2016).

Thanks, I stand corrected.

SonOfABeech wrote:

United's GUM-CNS (I think it's already been cancelled) always seemed a bit weird to me. What was the reason behind it?

well i remember hearing that this route's purpose was to connect asian tourists via GUM to see the great barrier riff. however this route was cancelled i think.

also MIA-BLA is really strange

usflyer123 wrote:

SonOfABeech wrote:

United's GUM-CNS (I think it's already been cancelled) always seemed a bit weird to me. What was the reason behind it?

well i remember hearing that this route's purpose was to connect asian tourists via GUM to see the great barrier riff. however this route was cancelled i think.

also MIA-BLA is really strange

why would MIA-BLA be strange?
i really dont get some of the questions here, honestly...
*think* people....*think*

why would MIA-BLA be strange?
i really dont get some of the questions here, honestly...
*think* people....*think*[/quote]

correct me if im wrong but miami area has around 100,000 venezuelan people.
barcelona(venezuela) has around 600,000 people so its kind of weird because probably the VFR pax on this flight is low and as i know there is no big tourist attractions in venezuela and esprcially barcelona so it is a weird route indeed.

usflyer123 wrote:

why would MIA-BLA be strange?
i really dont get some of the questions here, honestly...
*think* people....*think*

correct me if im wrong but miami area has around 100,000 venezuelan people.
barcelona(venezuela) has around 600,000 people so its kind of weird because probably the VFR pax on this flight is low and as i know there is no big tourist attractions in venezuela and esprcially barcelona so it is a weird route indeed.[/quote]

Miami probably has closer to 200-250k Venezuelans now and they travel between Miami and Venezuela a lot. Miami has supported service to Barcelona for a decade. It's not wierd. What's weird is that Miami isn't connected non-stop to the likes of Valencia, Barquisimeto and Palomar, but that also goes back to the Venezuela government not allowing those routes to operate.

Miami-Valencia is one of the busiest U.S.-International city pairs without non-stop service.

Plenty of smaller cities in South America that support Miami service, like Armenia and Paramaribo.

MAH4546 wrote:

usflyer123 wrote:

why would MIA-BLA be strange?
i really dont get some of the questions here, honestly...
*think* people....*think*

correct me if im wrong but miami area has around 100,000 venezuelan people.
barcelona(venezuela) has around 600,000 people so its kind of weird because probably the VFR pax on this flight is low and as i know there is no big tourist attractions in venezuela and esprcially barcelona so it is a weird route indeed.

Miami probably has closer to 200-250k Venezuelans now and they travel between Miami and Venezuela a lot. Miami has supported service to Barcelona for a decade. It's not wierd. What's weird is that Miami isn't connected non-stop to the likes of Valencia, Barquisimeto and Palomar, but that also goes back to the Venezuela government not allowing those routes to operate.

Miami-Valencia is one of the busiest U.S.-International city pairs without non-stop service.

Plenty of smaller cities in South America that support Miami service, like Armenia and Paramaribo.[/quote]

thanks for that info didnt know that. i guess its probably explains why CCS-MIA has around 660k pax a year on that route.

MKIAZ wrote:

LAX-RAR is usually a 763 with an occasional 777 during peak periods.

I do remember reading somewhere that the route is subsidized by the cook islands, but unsure if this is still true.

LAX-RAR is switching to an 772 later on this year, as part of the 763 phase out plan, which will add additional 100 seats per service along with PE on the route.

NZ operates this route, as its under written by the Cook Island Government on an deal that means they will cover any loses from the route as the income to the region is greater than the loss. The New Zealand Government gives the Cook Island Government to the funding to the cover the routes. The same applies for RAR-SYD which is an weekly NZ 763 (yet to be announced what it will be changed too.

RAR-AKL gets no government funding and NZ operates it up to twice daily. Along with VA RAR-AKL and JQ RAR-AKL a couple of times weekly

zkncj wrote:

MKIAZ wrote:

LAX-RAR is usually a 763 with an occasional 777 during peak periods.

I do remember reading somewhere that the route is subsidized by the cook islands, but unsure if this is still true.

LAX-RAR is switching to an 772 later on this year, as part of the 763 phase out plan, which will add additional 100 seats per service along with PE on the route.

NZ operates this route, as its under written by the Cook Island Government on an deal that means they will cover any loses from the route as the income to the region is greater than the loss. The New Zealand Government gives the Cook Island Government to the funding to the cover the routes. The same applies for RAR-SYD which is an weekly NZ 763 (yet to be announced what it will be changed too.

RAR-AKL gets no government funding and NZ operates it up to twice daily. Along with VA RAR-AKL and JQ RAR-AKL a couple of times weekly

it was pretty obvious it was funded by NZ, i guess this route isnt successfull but its important to the economy of cook islands.
does the same thing happens with AIR GREENLANDs SFG-CPH route, is it also subsidized?

MIflyer12 wrote:

That doesn't do much to explain it. It is the only S America service by DL from DTW. MSP is a hub, too, and sees no S America service. It is likely the number of daily travelers connecting at DTW who couldn't connect to ATL-GRU is pretty small. No, IMHO it exists for DTW O&D on negotiated business cabin fares.

The O&D may be enough to fill the front seats but I dount it's enough to fills up the back of an A330. The hub is just as important here. Not only for midwest connections but also for Asian connections too.

usflyer123 wrote:

it was pretty obvious it was funded by NZ, i guess this route isnt successfull but its important to the economy of cook islands.
does the same thing happens with AIR GREENLANDs SFG-CPH route, is it also subsidized?

It's also a stroke of genius. NZ places older hard products on AKL-RAR-LAX and lowering the pricing so the kayakers will self select into the 1-stop service, leaving ample room on their nonstop flagship services for those will to put out the dough.

Not to mention that a nonstop link to LAX provides a huge drive to Cook Islands tourism. Let's be honest - Cook / RAR (and most neighboring islands) have always been far over-shadowed by Tahiti and Bora Bora.

usflyer123 wrote:

also MIA-BLA is really strange

MIA is the premier leisure, shopping, entertainment, and VFR for all of Latin America, and that's not an exaggeration. The Latin American network on AA out of MIA was even greater a few years ago before most Latin American countries went into recession.

Re: the various comments about NZ doing LAX-RAR. Didn't they also have a weekly LAX-TBU-AKL flight at some point?

DolphinAir747 wrote:

usflyer123 wrote:

also MIA-BLA is really strange

MIA is the premier leisure, shopping, entertainment, and VFR for all of Latin America, and that's not an exaggeration. The Latin American network on AA out of MIA was even greater a few years ago before most Latin American countries went into recession.

You shouldn't confuse Brazil with South America. Much of South America is doing fine - Colombia, Peru and Ecuador especially - and AA has not discontinued anything outside of Brazil and short-lived Asuncion.

MaxxFlyer wrote:

Re: the various comments about NZ doing LAX-RAR. Didn't they also have a weekly LAX-TBU-AKL flight at some point?

It was AKL-APW-TBU-LAX with an 763, it ended due to the Tonga/Samoa governments not being able to pay NZ to keep the service going.

zkncj wrote:

MaxxFlyer wrote:

Re: the various comments about NZ doing LAX-RAR. Didn't they also have a weekly LAX-TBU-AKL flight at some point?

It was AKL-APW-TBU-LAX with an 763, it ended due to the Tonga/Samoa governments not being able to pay NZ to keep the service going.

Other way round AKL-TBU-APW-LAX.

a380787 wrote:

It's also a stroke of genius. NZ places older hard products on AKL-RAR-LAX and lowering the pricing so the kayakers will self select into the 1-stop service, leaving ample room on their nonstop flagship services for those will to put out the dough.

I don't think so, this flight ops once weekly and by the sounds of it is usually pretty full, sure a few airline nuts might book it but it wouldn't be the norm. The 77E has the same product as the 77W bar Y+.