Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:22 pm

The last hurdle in the Brazilian Congress has been cleared and the US-Brazil open skies agreement can finally come into force.

We can now expect Delta-Gol and United-Azul to announce JBAs soon.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-braz ... SKCN1GJ2ZJ
 
DFWAviator76
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:10 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:23 pm

Excellent news. I was curious if this would ever happen, given the fierce competition for US-Brazil slot allocations.
 
PDPsol
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:09 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:58 pm

This is fabulous news, thrilled Brazil's infamously sclerotic legislature has ratified the Open skies agreement with the U.S. Believe the LA/AA joint-business-agreement has already gone into effect ex-Brazil, while Brazil's ANAC regulator authorized the venture last fall.

However, even more interesting than seeing DL partner with G3, or UA partner with O6, will be how U.S. low-cost-carriers react, especially B6 from FLL. While they can service northeast destinations like FOR, SSA, and REC, let's speculate whether they can effectively compete against the major alliance partners on major markets like GRU. FLL-GRU is 6,600 km, can the A321neoLR's listed 7,400 km-listed range make that route without weight penalties? If so, why not offer MINT-heavy cabins on the FLL-GRU route at greatly reduced fares and force all the incumbents to compete?
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:27 am

PDPsol wrote:
This is fabulous news, thrilled Brazil's infamously sclerotic legislature has ratified the Open skies agreement with the U.S. Believe the LA/AA joint-business-agreement has already gone into effect ex-Brazil, while Brazil's ANAC regulator authorized the venture last fall.

However, even more interesting than seeing DL partner with G3, or UA partner with O6, will be how U.S. low-cost-carriers react, especially B6 from FLL. While they can service northeast destinations like FOR, SSA, and REC, let's speculate whether they can effectively compete against the major alliance partners on major markets like GRU. FLL-GRU is 6,600 km, can the A321neoLR's listed 7,400 km-listed range make that route without weight penalties? If so, why not offer MINT-heavy cabins on the FLL-GRU route at greatly reduced fares and force all the incumbents to compete?


I sincerely believe that the BR/US routes will be a terrific market for the A321LR.

Low cost, great fares...

AD and B6 seems to be a great choice for these routes and aircraft.
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:43 am

Will this potentially allow Azul to fly to EWR?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:11 am

VC10er wrote:
Will this potentially allow Azul to fly to EWR?


Nothing ever stopped Azul from doing so.

In fact, since US Airways dropped CLT-GRU, any airline could have started any route between the US and Brazil.

The open skies agreement will only make a difference in the next decade. Until then, then possibilities of the current bilateral would have sufficient.

Nevertheless, it is great news that we don't have to see the bilateral agreement exhausted before it is expanded.
 
mackdad
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:16 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 5:53 am

 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 10:47 am

I just flew UA from EWR to SDU, the connection at GRU is truly exhausting. GRU is a giant, confusing airport that is poorly signed. I wish UA would restore the GIG tag. At least you wouldn’t have to leave the new Terminal and perhaps gain access to the new Star Alliance Lounge for a rest or shower.
Right now you get dumped off a 772 (even if you were in F or J) and you are on your own...no longer eligible to use the arrivals lounge. A brand new terminal and no way to get to the Star Alliance Lounge for a 3.5 hour wait for your domestic leg.
I presume this new agreement won’t change this?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
prchan
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 2:37 pm

I would not envision any major change soon (on this transition)...
Currently the best domestic lounge available in T2 is the Bradesco one (which accepts AMEX, but I guess only Brazilian issued ones). Other alternative GOL, which accepts Priority Pass. This means no support for Star Alliance...
 
winGl3t
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 2:42 pm

VC10er wrote:
I just flew UA from EWR to SDU, the connection at GRU is truly exhausting. GRU is a giant, confusing airport that is poorly signed. I wish UA would restore the GIG tag. At least you wouldn’t have to leave the new Terminal and perhaps gain access to the new Star Alliance Lounge for a rest or shower.
Right now you get dumped off a 772 (even if you were in F or J) and you are on your own...no longer eligible to use the arrivals lounge. A brand new terminal and no way to get to the Star Alliance Lounge for a 3.5 hour wait for your domestic leg.
I presume this new agreement won’t change this?


Open skies unfortunatelly won't change that. Airlines and Alliances deal will. Connecting to/from T1 is a pain!
I used Gol's domestic lounges and showers last time I arrived from JFK-GRU on DL C on my way to GRU-CWB with G3. It was all under the same roof and pretty seamless.
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 3:19 pm

No doubt we'll have a flurry of joint ventures, AA-LATAM, UA-Avianca, DL-Gol which create cartel like prices. Some carriers from far off lands will begin 5th freedom routes because of the cartel rents that the US3 have created and then they'll cry foul because someone spoiled their party!
 
User avatar
ojjunior
Posts: 987
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:31 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 4:35 pm

Great, what will final customers get with this?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3382
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 7:06 pm

PDPsol wrote:
This is fabulous news, thrilled Brazil's infamously sclerotic legislature has ratified the Open skies agreement with the U.S. Believe the LA/AA joint-business-agreement has already gone into effect ex-Brazil, while Brazil's ANAC regulator authorized the venture last fall.

However, even more interesting than seeing DL partner with G3, or UA partner with O6, will be how U.S. low-cost-carriers react, especially B6 from FLL. (...)?


There is just one really big problem. Outside of GRU/GIG, the market isn't really very big. While there has been a bit of a recovery in the last 18 months, the recovery has stalled. In the last couple of weeks the real took a dip against the dollar, further denting the ability of Brazil's middle class to vacation in Florida. Those leisure travelers are a huge component of making any route outside GRU/GIG work.

I am not seeing in a scenario in the short-term where supply is significantly different from what it is now. It is more likely that we see some cleanup. Gol for example, with four flights a day to Florida, is only feasible in peak season.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
klakzky123
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 7:14 pm

ojjunior wrote:
Great, what will final customers get with this?


Joint Ventures. You'll finally see a DL/G3 JV or a UA JV with O6 or AD. Other than that, not a whole lot will change in the short term.
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 7:14 pm

ojjunior wrote:
Great, what will final customers get with this?


Without JVs more access, more capacity and lower prices. If most of the capacity ends up in JVs then higher prices.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 7:52 pm

How far deep can a 752 fly into Brazil? Could it make GRU/GIG from a point in the USA?
As a UA loyalist I am dying for an EWR/GIG flight. I don’t know if they could fill a 763, maybe in Brazilian peak 3/4 times a week?
Transferring at IAH or GRU to GIG/SDU makes a perfect 9 hour flight a long and tiring one.
I realize a 752 can’t make it, just wonder if there is a solution like EWR to San Juan, fuel up and onto GIG? Beats Copa through Panama on a 737 the whole way (albeit cheap!)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8536
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 9:22 pm

VC10er wrote:
How far deep can a 752 fly into Brazil? Could it make GRU/GIG from a point in the USA?


A UA-config 752 would be marginal for MIA-GIG/GRU. The one-stop/tech stop stuff can't command the non-stop price premium and winds up competing with NYC-IAH/ATL/MIA-GRU/GIG.
 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Fri May 25, 2018 10:24 pm

GIG has a healthy demand to/from the Northeast and Canada. If UA invested in the market, they could be succesful. A major hindrance though is the fact that airport does not call itself “New York”. That keeps away the incoming tourist traffic.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 1:47 am

C010T3 wrote:
GIG has a healthy demand to/from the Northeast and Canada. If UA invested in the market, they could be succesful. A major hindrance though is the fact that airport does not call itself “New York”. That keeps away the incoming tourist traffic.


Good answer, but partially right there. Although the airport is officially Newark Liberty International Airport, most searches for either New York City, NYC, or New York bring up EWR as an option. Trust, if a carioca has the means and ability to travel to the States, particularly the NYC region, they will know that there are two massive international airports in the metro area that can be used. :) Also there service from GRU to EWR thus Newark is not unknown to either paulistas or cariocas. ;)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 2:01 am

evanb wrote:
No doubt we'll have a flurry of joint ventures, AA-LATAM, UA-Avianca, DL-Gol which create cartel like prices.
evanb wrote:
Without JVs more access, more capacity and lower prices.

You keep spouting this with nothing to back it up.

Taking the mature (US-EU) and recent (US-Japan/Korea) and burgeoning (US-Mexico) J/Vs into account... show us how prices have risen beyond what they would've been in the absence of immunized cooperation between airlines.

In the days of sub-$350 roundtrip fares from mainland USA to Asia, this should certainly be "interesting."
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 2:10 am

I know that they've finally gone to online visas... but I'm curious as to whether Brazil is any closer to getting on the US' visa waiver program, and reciprocating likewise.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 2:33 am

Judge1310 wrote:
C010T3 wrote:
GIG has a healthy demand to/from the Northeast and Canada. If UA invested in the market, they could be succesful. A major hindrance though is the fact that airport does not call itself “New York”. That keeps away the incoming tourist traffic.


Good answer, but partially right there. Although the airport is officially Newark Liberty International Airport, most searches for either New York City, NYC, or New York bring up EWR as an option. Trust, if a carioca has the means and ability to travel to the States, particularly the NYC region, they will know that there are two massive international airports in the metro area that can be used. :) Also there service from GRU to EWR thus Newark is not unknown to either paulistas or cariocas. ;)


I am not talking about tourist traffic of people that know the tri-state area well. We are talking here about traffic generated by tourists that go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime. These are the people that will decide against EWR in the online search engine or even after it is offered by a travel agent. They first think that it is a mistake, considering that 'Newark' also begins with 'New'. Afterwards, they imagine a distant airport that is not quite New York, so, yes, not having New York as the first name of the airport is a big marketing mistake.

Yes, there is an EWR-GRU, but I doubt that it lives up to its full potential.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 10:45 am

C010T3 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
C010T3 wrote:
GIG has a healthy demand to/from the Northeast and Canada. If UA invested in the market, they could be succesful. A major hindrance though is the fact that airport does not call itself “New York”. That keeps away the incoming tourist traffic.


Good answer, but partially right there. Although the airport is officially Newark Liberty International Airport, most searches for either New York City, NYC, or New York bring up EWR as an option. Trust, if a carioca has the means and ability to travel to the States, particularly the NYC region, they will know that there are two massive international airports in the metro area that can be used. :) Also there service from GRU to EWR thus Newark is not unknown to either paulistas or cariocas. ;)


I am not talking about tourist traffic of people that know the tri-state area well. We are talking here about traffic generated by tourists that go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime. These are the people that will decide against EWR in the online search engine or even after it is offered by a travel agent. They first think that it is a mistake, considering that 'Newark' also begins with 'New'. Afterwards, they imagine a distant airport that is not quite New York, so, yes, not having New York as the first name of the airport is a big marketing mistake.

Yes, there is an EWR-GRU, but I doubt that it lives up to its full potential.


I am sorry to disagree a bit. I’m sure you’re correct in some cases, but not the majority. While they are not usually premium passengers, Northern NJ has a HUGE Brazilian population, and premium fliers know the truth: Newark is a NYC airport. Same as “Guarulhos” being almost a different town than São Paulo or Niteroi is Rio’s sister city, or that Gov island where GIG is located, while part of Rio metropolitan is actually pretty much off the beaten trail. Also there have been flights to Newark from both GRU and GIG for many decades as CO (and VASP) served them non-stop. I know that many financial people from São Paulo like the flight because of proximity to Manhattan’s and Jersey City’s financial districts.
And while older, there are still ex-VARIG fliers who stuck with UA after RG’s collapse. VARIG was a fairly early member of Star Alliance.
How are UA’s loads on this route? I fly it more than I could count on 764s and 772s and it’s ALWAYS full, especially business class. And it seems like there are even more Brazilian passengers than Americans.
Rio certainly must be very seasonal, I cannot help but think that a Nov through Carnival non-stop to GIG “could” work.
The killer has been the Brazilian Economy over the past few years but is finally showing some signs of coming back. Operation “Car Wash” really knocked the stuffing out of Brazil.
Perhaps Avianca will give it a go? The connections would be great from EWR.
I think GIG is the perfect “MoM/797” route, I have a long wait to test that theory!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 12:24 pm

I hope Avianca will give it a go too!
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
reffado
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:47 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 3:20 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
I know that they've finally gone to online visas... but I'm curious as to whether Brazil is any closer to getting on the US' visa waiver program, and reciprocating likewise.


Not happening anytime soon, sadly. Politics. I do agree it would likely boost tourism, though.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 3:56 pm

reffado wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
I know that they've finally gone to online visas... but I'm curious as to whether Brazil is any closer to getting on the US' visa waiver program, and reciprocating likewise.


Not happening anytime soon, sadly. Politics. I do agree it would likely boost tourism, though.


Yep. I agree, the politics for the first time are very xenophobic and protectionist. One day. I’ve always thought Brazil and the USA could be great partners in the hemisphere. Although Disneyworld seems to always do well...how do all those kids get visas? Viva Brasil!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 4:55 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
No doubt we'll have a flurry of joint ventures, AA-LATAM, UA-Avianca, DL-Gol which create cartel like prices.
evanb wrote:
Without JVs more access, more capacity and lower prices.

You keep spouting this with nothing to back it up.

Taking the mature (US-EU) and recent (US-Japan/Korea) and burgeoning (US-Mexico) J/Vs into account... show us how prices have risen beyond what they would've been in the absence of immunized cooperation between airlines.

In the days of sub-$350 roundtrip fares from mainland USA to Asia, this should certainly be "interesting."


I don't have a problem with open skies. I think governments should continue to liberalize. However, my problem is with Joint Ventures. The reason why they are anti-competitive is for the same reason why they require immunity from anti-trust laws. This immunity allows them to create cartels, and cartels de facto result in higher prices. If there were no price effects of JVs, they would not require anti-trust immunity. So while the open skies reduce barriers to entry, the JVs increase market concentration.

Since the EU-US open skies agreement in 2008 which allowed for the expansion of the JVs to cover 90% of transatlantic traffic, the US3 have reduced transatlantic capacity by 6% (measured by Available Seat Miles from 2008 to 2016), yet unit revenue and yield are up. This wouldn't have been possible without the JVs where 90% of capacity is in JVs, meaning 90% of the capacity is controlled by 3 firms.

As a partial counterfactual, during the same time, the US3 capacity across the Pacific grew 19%, while unit revenue and yields were down. Pacific JVs are far less developed and have substantially less market share (although changing substantially now that the DL-KE JV is beginning). Similar in Latin America, where US capacity grew by 22%, while unit revenue and yields were down.

I don't have a problem where a JV is used to increase market power of smaller airlines when there are entrenched or dominant incumbents, but when entrenched incumbents are forming JVs it's for no other reason that price coordination. If it were just about scheduled or coordination capacity coordination then they wouldn't ask for price coordination protection in the briefs they file with the DoT.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 6:00 pm

C010T3 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
C010T3 wrote:
GIG has a healthy demand to/from the Northeast and Canada. If UA invested in the market, they could be succesful. A major hindrance though is the fact that airport does not call itself “New York”. That keeps away the incoming tourist traffic.


Good answer, but partially right there. Although the airport is officially Newark Liberty International Airport, most searches for either New York City, NYC, or New York bring up EWR as an option. Trust, if a carioca has the means and ability to travel to the States, particularly the NYC region, they will know that there are two massive international airports in the metro area that can be used. :) Also there service from GRU to EWR thus Newark is not unknown to either paulistas or cariocas. ;)


I am not talking about tourist traffic of people that know the tri-state area well. We are talking here about traffic generated by tourists that go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime. These are the people that will decide against EWR in the online search engine or even after it is offered by a travel agent. They first think that it is a mistake, considering that 'Newark' also begins with 'New'. Afterwards, they imagine a distant airport that is not quite New York, so, yes, not having New York as the first name of the airport is a big marketing mistake.

Yes, there is an EWR-GRU, but I doubt that it lives up to its full potential.


So.....if you're referencing travellers who "go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime" then why would they matter with respect to an airline successfully launching a route? That's something that's not a deep consideration for network planners. VC10er, in their post, correctly stated that the premium traffic knows about EWR and JFK and their respective roles in the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State Area. Following that, your particular type of tourist is also most likely to place their 'reais' more toward the lower price...another consideration that doesn't necessarily bode well for launching a new route.

You mentioned EWR-GRU. Well I can tell you that the route does live "up to its full potential". Indeed, that route is one of two on UA (the other being from ORD) that is still operated with a Global First Cabin. Have you been to Sao Paulo? The monied executives there, who'd most likely be the ones travelling in those premium cabins, do not travel about town like the regular folk...that city is known for all the helicopters and requisite helicopter pads on top of all the high-rises in the city.

To close, GIG is a fine and lovely place...however the majority of the travellers to that region do fine with connections via MIA, IAH, ATL, and even GRU amongst others.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4733
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 6:33 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
I know that they've finally gone to online visas... but I'm curious as to whether Brazil is any closer to getting on the US' visa waiver program, and reciprocating likewise.


Under the current political climate in the US and the current national leadership in DC, it is safe to say that any new additions to the visa waiver program are, for all intents and purposes, in the freezer for the foreseeable future.

What you are seeing now is some countries being approved for the Global Entry program: Argentina, Colombia and Panama have been approved since last year and joining Germany, India, Singapore, South Korea and the UK as program members.

Incidentally, the Washington Post featured an excellent article yesterday about the contempt Mr Trump has for immigration ("we are closed") and the current DHS leadership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Keep calm and wash your hands.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 7:23 pm

evanb wrote:
However, my problem is with Joint Ventures.

No one cares.

The question was can you empirically demonstrate what you keep repeating about noncompetitive pricing... and of course you can't, because it's simply not the case. Thus why do you continue to do it?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 7:28 pm

VC10er wrote:
reffado wrote:
Not happening anytime soon, sadly. Politics. I do agree it would likely boost tourism, though.

Yep. I agree, the politics for the first time are very xenophobic and protectionist.

Bummer, but figured. :(
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 8:07 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
So.....if you're referencing travellers who "go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime" then why would they matter with respect to an airline successfully launching a route? That's something that's not a deep consideration for network planners. VC10er, in their post, correctly stated that the premium traffic knows about EWR and JFK and their respective roles in the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State Area. Following that, your particular type of tourist is also most likely to place their 'reais' more toward the lower price...another consideration that doesn't necessarily bode well for launching a new route.

You mentioned EWR-GRU. Well I can tell you that the route does live "up to its full potential". Indeed, that route is one of two on UA (the other being from ORD) that is still operated with a Global First Cabin. Have you been to Sao Paulo? The monied executives there, who'd most likely be the ones travelling in those premium cabins, do not travel about town like the regular folk...that city is known for all the helicopters and requisite helicopter pads on top of all the high-rises in the city.

To close, GIG is a fine and lovely place...however the majority of the travellers to that region do fine with connections via MIA, IAH, ATL, and even GRU amongst others.


The US POS in the US-Brazil market is secondary. The incoming tourism industry is not a much relevant one in Brazil.
MIA, NYC and MCO are top destinations from Brazil. It's only natural that flights to those destinations would represent the majority of flights, especially since Brazil is so far East that even NYC is a perfect suitable connecting point to most of the country.
Nobody cares that Delta flies hordes of passengers to MCO via ATL and even nonstop to MCO, but it is apparently crime that I propose that any airline should cater to that part of the flying public.
My argument was that EWR is not as strong as JFK as a gateway to New York in the eyes of "The Dumb Brazilian". Unfortunately, "The Dumb Brazilian" is a very important market segment. It is the "The Dumb Brazilian" that likes going to Times Square to take photos for the Instagram feed and wants to get to visit all the places shown in US movies and series.
People have difficulty accepting the fact that the majority of passengers between Brazil and the United States are leisure tourists.
Hasn't UA (formerly CO) been flying one daily EWR-GRU flight for twenty years now? What is the growth that has been experienced?
 
luckyone
Posts: 3300
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 10:16 pm

C010T3 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
So.....if you're referencing travellers who "go to NYC once or twice in their lifetime" then why would they matter with respect to an airline successfully launching a route? That's something that's not a deep consideration for network planners. VC10er, in their post, correctly stated that the premium traffic knows about EWR and JFK and their respective roles in the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State Area. Following that, your particular type of tourist is also most likely to place their 'reais' more toward the lower price...another consideration that doesn't necessarily bode well for launching a new route.

You mentioned EWR-GRU. Well I can tell you that the route does live "up to its full potential". Indeed, that route is one of two on UA (the other being from ORD) that is still operated with a Global First Cabin. Have you been to Sao Paulo? The monied executives there, who'd most likely be the ones travelling in those premium cabins, do not travel about town like the regular folk...that city is known for all the helicopters and requisite helicopter pads on top of all the high-rises in the city.

To close, GIG is a fine and lovely place...however the majority of the travellers to that region do fine with connections via MIA, IAH, ATL, and even GRU amongst others.


The US POS in the US-Brazil market is secondary. The incoming tourism industry is not a much relevant one in Brazil.
MIA, NYC and MCO are top destinations from Brazil. It's only natural that flights to those destinations would represent the majority of flights, especially since Brazil is so far East that even NYC is a perfect suitable connecting point to most of the country.
Nobody cares that Delta flies hordes of passengers to MCO via ATL and even nonstop to MCO, but it is apparently crime that I propose that any airline should cater to that part of the flying public.
My argument was that EWR is not as strong as JFK as a gateway to New York in the eyes of "The Dumb Brazilian". Unfortunately, "The Dumb Brazilian" is a very important market segment. It is the "The Dumb Brazilian" that likes going to Times Square to take photos for the Instagram feed and wants to get to visit all the places shown in US movies and series.
People have difficulty accepting the fact that the majority of passengers between Brazil and the United States are leisure tourists.
Hasn't UA (formerly CO) been flying one daily EWR-GRU flight for twenty years now? What is the growth that has been experienced?

I have a one-word response to your entire argument: Viracopos. If I type in “SAO” I get three choices: GRU, CGH, and VCP. Same if I type in “NYC.” I get EWR, JFK, and LGA.

Further, the Dumb Brazilian isn’t sustaining a route to New York. Give it a rest, bud.
 
C010T3
Topic Author
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 10:47 pm

luckyone wrote:
I have a one-word response to your entire argument: Viracopos. If I type in “SAO” I get three choices: GRU, CGH, and VCP. Same if I type in “NYC.” I get EWR, JFK, and LGA.

Further, the Dumb Brazilian isn’t sustaining a route to New York. Give it a rest, bud.


VCP is actually exactly the model that EWR should be using. If it were called at least New York/Newark or only New York Liberty, it would boost its own potential.
 
luckyone
Posts: 3300
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 11:06 pm

C010T3 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
I have a one-word response to your entire argument: Viracopos. If I type in “SAO” I get three choices: GRU, CGH, and VCP. Same if I type in “NYC.” I get EWR, JFK, and LGA.

Further, the Dumb Brazilian isn’t sustaining a route to New York. Give it a rest, bud.


VCP is actually exactly the model that EWR should be using. If it were called at least New York/Newark or only New York Liberty, it would boost its own potential.

You clearly do not know what you’re talking about.
VCP is officially “Aeroporto Internacional Viracopos” and it’s website doesn’t say much about Sampa other than it’s 80km away and there are bus providers. EWR’s website also provides the same information about transport to NYC. EWR’s fares contradict anything else you might claim. Any references to it being called Sao Paolo are for marketing purposes, which other users have already told you EWR does. Don’t believe me? Look at their website in both English and Portuguese.
http://www.aeroportoviracopos.net/en/
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sat May 26, 2018 11:50 pm

luckyone wrote:
C010T3 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
I have a one-word response to your entire argument: Viracopos. If I type in “SAO” I get three choices: GRU, CGH, and VCP. Same if I type in “NYC.” I get EWR, JFK, and LGA.

Further, the Dumb Brazilian isn’t sustaining a route to New York. Give it a rest, bud.


VCP is actually exactly the model that EWR should be using. If it were called at least New York/Newark or only New York Liberty, it would boost its own potential.

You clearly do not know what you’re talking about.
VCP is officially “Aeroporto Internacional Viracopos” and it’s website doesn’t say much about Sampa other than it’s 80km away and there are bus providers. EWR’s website also provides the same information about transport to NYC. EWR’s fares contradict anything else you might claim. Any references to it being called Sao Paolo are for marketing purposes, which other users have already told you EWR does. Don’t believe me? Look at their website in both English and Portuguese.
http://www.aeroportoviracopos.net/en/



Thank you! Or better yet, Obrigado!
 
VC10er
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 10:02 am

“The dumb Brazilian” really? Are there “dumb Japanese” in Times Square also avoiding EWR? If they are, they are probably just avoiding United.
The “average lower middle class Brazilian” who’s going on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to “Nova York” is probably going to go to a travel agent. They will probably buy a ticket and pay for it in “10 monthly installments” and will have selected the lowest fare...and if that meant flying into EWR the travel agent would explain that it’s Nova York’s other big international airport and equally as convenient to Manhattan and give them printed materials about transportation and/or direct them to a travel website in Portuguese. They also probably have been watching “The Manhattan Report” on TV. A weekly show all about what’s going on in NYC. Often the show’s advertisers are travel agency companies.
My husband of 20 years is Brazilian, I’ve been doing work in Brazil for 30 years and I have yet to meet a truly dumb Brazilian. As for stereotyping I’ve met a couple shady Brazilians, but they were far from dumb.
My husband’s brother has taken his family to the USA, Disneyworld (Disney has brainwashed Brazilian children) and NYC. He and his wife bought packages with 10 month payment plans that include hotels. They couldn’t have cared less about the airline or airport.
My other Brazilian friends are all gay Cariocas (all very handsome “Barbie’s” to be stereotypical), and well as business associates, they come to NYC fairy often. They are all very savvy travelers. AA seems to be their airline of choice because it’s simply the most famous in the region, but happy to fly United into Newark or United to LA or SF. Delta or LATAM are fine if the price is right. They don’t care what airport they fly into, they care mostly about accommodations, which are often very, very expensive for Brazilians.
One thing we all have in common a GIG/NYC non-stop even if it goes into White Plains!
abraços aos meus amigos da companhia aérea!❤️
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 2:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
No doubt we'll have a flurry of joint ventures, AA-LATAM, UA-Avianca, DL-Gol which create cartel like prices.
evanb wrote:
Without JVs more access, more capacity and lower prices.

You keep spouting this with nothing to back it up.

Taking the mature (US-EU) and recent (US-Japan/Korea) and burgeoning (US-Mexico) J/Vs into account... show us how prices have risen beyond what they would've been in the absence of immunized cooperation between airlines.

In the days of sub-$350 roundtrip fares from mainland USA to Asia, this should certainly be "interesting."


And I'd like to know why you think $350/RT US to Asia fares are in any related to J/V's , considering those are CN's dumping those fares?
That's aside from the fact that most of the US cannot take advantage of those kinds of fares.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 2:20 pm

VC10er wrote:
My other Brazilian friends are all gay Cariocas (all very handsome “Barbie’s” to be stereotypical), and well as business associates, they come to NYC fairy often.


forgive me for giggling.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 4:02 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
VC10er wrote:
My other Brazilian friends are all gay Cariocas (all very handsome “Barbie’s” to be stereotypical), and well as business associates, they come to NYC fairy often.

forgive me for giggling.

Freudian slip ;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
incitatus
Posts: 3382
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 5:22 pm

evanb wrote:

I don't have a problem with open skies. I think governments should continue to liberalize. However, my problem is with Joint Ventures. The reason why they are anti-competitive is for the same reason why they require immunity from anti-trust laws. This immunity allows them to create cartels, and cartels de facto result in higher prices. If there were no price effects of JVs, they would not require anti-trust immunity. So while the open skies reduce barriers to entry, the JVs increase market concentration.

Since the EU-US open skies agreement in 2008 which allowed for the expansion of the JVs to cover 90% of transatlantic traffic, the US3 have reduced transatlantic capacity by 6% (measured by Available Seat Miles from 2008 to 2016), yet unit revenue and yield are up. This wouldn't have been possible without the JVs where 90% of capacity is in JVs, meaning 90% of the capacity is controlled by 3 firms.

(...).


We cannot look at 2008 vs. 2016 through the lens of joint ventures only. In 2008 the US airline industry was not financially healthy. It was not in a sustainable state. JVs or no JVs, the market supply was in for a correction. I don't think it is far off to say that the market between Asia and North America is right now in that unsustainable 2008 state.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 5:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
However, my problem is with Joint Ventures.

No one cares.

The question was can you empirically demonstrate what you keep repeating about noncompetitive pricing... and of course you can't, because it's simply not the case. Thus why do you continue to do it?


Nobody cares about your hubris, either. I've shown you data showing a significant decline in transatlantic capacity and increase in unit revenue/yields since the JV expansion, and the counterfactual of the capacity, unit revenue and yields in other regions. As usual, you never provide any data because it hurts your ego.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 5:40 pm

evanb wrote:
Nobody cares about your hubris, either. I've shown you data showing a significant decline in transatlantic capacity and increase in unit revenue/yields since the JV expansion, and the counterfactual of the capacity, unit revenue and yields in other regions.

Yet what you noticeably haven't shown, how that relates to a rise in fares, on a y.o.y or even inflationary basis...

...ya know, those parameters that the DOT actually uses for comparison, since it does not (nor has it ever) given two craps about individual airlines' revenue.

So by all means, please do so--- as was requested of you the first time.



FlyHappy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
In the days of sub-$350 roundtrip fares from mainland USA to Asia, this should certainly be "interesting."

And I'd like to know why you think $350/RT US to Asia fares are in any related to J/V's , considering those are CN's dumping those fares?
That's aside from the fact that most of the US cannot take advantage of those kinds of fares.

All that shows is that you don't know what you're talking about.

The US carriers routinely match said crazy low fares, or lead them themselves.
Here's just a few examples from just UA in just the last month alone:

LAX to BKK for $460 roundtrip
https://www.theflightdeal.com/2018/05/1 ... all-taxes/

LAX to LIS for $360 roundtrip
https://www.theflightdeal.com/2018/05/2 ... all-taxes/

LAX to BCN for $404 roundtrip
https://www.theflightdeal.com/2018/05/0 ... l-taxes-2/

LAX to SIN for $514 roundtrip
https://www.theflightdeal.com/2018/05/0 ... l-taxes-4/

....could post about dozens upon dozens of additional examples if I cared to put in the effort. AA, DL, and HA all do the same.
These are all roundtrips with tax included, and can often be booked as little as two weeks out.

And it's not like it's limited to one place, just about every major air market can take advantage of them to some extent: SFO, JFK, EWR, MIA, ORD, LAS, IAD, etc. Sucks for someone in Dubuque or Bismarck, but it's not they like had widespread low-cost transoceanic options prior either. Again, what's changed?

Thus, in conclusion, tell me more about how these J/Vs are just causing unreasonable/widespread increase in prices. Or better yet, show me. I'll wait.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:08 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
Nobody cares about your hubris, either. I've shown you data showing a significant decline in transatlantic capacity and increase in unit revenue/yields since the JV expansion, and the counterfactual of the capacity, unit revenue and yields in other regions.

Yet what you noticeably haven't shown, how that relates to a rise in fares, on a y.o.y or even inflationary basis...

...ya know, those parameters that the DOT actually uses for comparison, since it does not (nor has it ever) given two craps about individual airlines' revenue.

So by all means, please do so--- as was requested of you the first time.


All you do is gaslight. You have nothing useful to day.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:09 pm

evanb wrote:
All you do is gaslight. You have nothing useful to day.

A simple "No, I can't show an increase in fares caused by the advent of J/Vs," would've sufficed. :smile:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:15 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
All you do is gaslight. You have nothing useful to day.

A simple "No, I can't show an increase in fares caused by the advent of J/Vs," would've sufficed. :smile:


A simple recognition that I showed that that capacity was down, and that unit revenue and yield was up; whereas the opposite was true on other long-haul markets. That you don't like that the data and that it doesn't support your jingoistic pathologic narcissistic narrative you chose to gaslight. You could have argued with other data or explained with evidence why the data isn't relevant, but you didn't, which means you're simply gaslighting.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:19 pm

evanb wrote:
A simple recognition that I showed that that capacity was down, and that unit revenue and yield was up; whereas the opposite was true on other long-haul markets. That you don't like that the data and that it doesn't support your jingoistic pathologic narcissistic narrative you chose to gaslight. You could have argued with other data or explained with evidence why the data isn't relevant, but you didn't, which means you're simply gaslighting.

Which, let me put in small words and bold letters so even you might be able to grasp it:
is a correlation that doesn't equate to and hasn't translated into causation for higher fares

....which again is the primary parameter by which authoritative bodies gauge the state of competition.

How you continue to have difficulty comprehending that, or why you believe that expressing disdain for me would evoke anything other than amusement... is anyone's guess. But repeating it won't make it any more corroboratory of your false claim, than the first time you asserted it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
JohnVRG
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 6:08 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:30 pm

The thing is, as another fellow brazillian member that lives in Rio, C010T3 is right. People in Brazil really look after names and only a few guys now that Newark is the other main airport in NY and even closer to the main part of the city. Obviously, for many reasons, when they go to the travel agents, the flight with the cheaper price with take place and if this means flying to/via EWR, they won't care. When people look after going to a especific airport in a city, they will go after JFK in NYC, GIG in Rio, GRU in São Paulo, etc. VCP is an exception because people also travel often to Campinas city and Azul struggles all the traffic to the whole country at their main hub. All the other airlines such as Gol, LATAM and Avianca go to GRU, as it is their main HUB.

The fact stated that American Airlines are best known in Rio de Janeiro is, mainly, because it's the only US airline that had never stopped flying here nor changed airports, keeping a highly solid base in here and even going to 4 flights/day in the high season.

United Airlines ALWAYS had the chance to win the route to NYC with a WAY better service than AAL, but they never took it. Even right now without JJ flight since last year and now AA leaving the market in March/19 they didn't even moved a single finger about it and, for some uknown reason, Azul hadn't bite the offer either. But, not everything is lost... Delta is coming up again to JFK from GIG at the end of this year and will get a huge benefit from Gol connecting flights here, since it's the only airline with a big hub in here.

Nevertheless, it's a really good new. Finally we can get some pressure from the US airlines to build some new airline hubs in Brazil to grow up the market.
 
evanb
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:32 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
evanb wrote:
A simple recognition that I showed that that capacity was down, and that unit revenue and yield was up; whereas the opposite was true on other long-haul markets. That you don't like that the data and that it doesn't support your jingoistic pathologic narcissistic narrative you chose to gaslight. You could have argued with other data or explained with evidence why the data isn't relevant, but you didn't, which means you're simply gaslighting.

Which, let me put in small words and bold letters so even you might be able to grasp it:
is a correlation that doesn't equate to and hasn't translated into causation for higher fares

....which again is the primary parameter by which authoritative bodies gauge the state of competition.

How you continue to have difficulty comprehending that, or why you believe that expressing disdain for me would evoke anything other than amusement... is anyone's guess. But repeating it won't make it any more corroboratory of your false claim, than the first time you asserted it.


So let's get into a little epistemology here. You set an empirical bar which you know can't be proven either way, you do this after the fact, and then claim victory. You literally just defined gaslighting for us!

Of course we can't imply causality, but neither can we apply causality that the JVs didn't increase fares. What we can show is the partial-counterfactual by comparing what happened in trans Atlantic to Pacific and Latin America. I never implied casualty, I implied a partial counterfactual. You chose to gaslight this rather than engage on it.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: US-Brazil open skies agreement finally approved

Sun May 27, 2018 6:41 pm

evanb wrote:
So let's get into a little epistemology here. You set an empirical bar which you know can't be proven either way, you do this after the fact, and then claim victory. You literally just defined gaslighting for us!

Though I realize that that's apparently your favorite word, don't think it's lost on anyone that you made a claim that you couldn't actually corroborate, and will apparently continue to make a spectacle out of yourself rather than make that simple and easy admission.

All I asked is for you to (1) show an increase in fares charged to the market, you didn't; and (2) that that causation was due specifically to the advent of J/Vs, which again, you didn't.

Even if we're to assume that increase in revenues is a direct result of higher fares, which would be fallacious, you still didn't (and of course, can't) show that it's specifically due to the advent of J/Vs, which is what you've been whining about this whole time.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos