Despite the intentions of flying LAX-EZE only 3x weekly, American has applied for 7 weekly frequencies:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0051-0001

[threeid] [/threeid]

C010T3 wrote:

Despite the intentions of flying LAX-EZE only 3x weekly, American has applied for 7 weekly frequencies:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0051-0001

Smart move. Gives them room o expand if it does that well or if Brasil crashes again.

dcajet wrote:

Eastern reduced some of that intra-Americas flying and towards the end was focusing on non stops to EZE from MIA with second hand DC-10-30s. Also they did not touch Brazil until a few months before they folded.

In Argentina and Brazil, clearly PA owned the high yielding customer. Its FF base was the cream of the crop; every mover & shaker flew on PA's First Class cabins. United inherited that and did an excellent job until the late 90s, then it all came crumbling down with the closing of the MIA hub, CH. 11, closing the JFK routes... now the FF base is very segmented, but AA is the leader, no doubts about it.

IIRC, Eastern acquired the DC-10s for an MIA-LON service that didn’t pan out, so they redeployed them on MIA-EZE.

I remember seeing United 747s at MIA departing for EZE and GRU in the 1990s, and United was the first airline to fly the 777 to MIA. Just a decade later, UA went from a mini-hub to no mainline service whatsoever. What a waste.

LAXLHR wrote:

Yes, AA is the Latin AMERICAN premium carrier, so they see it as their airline too. After all, down there is America (citizens of the USA forget this).

Pedantry aside, it’s quite clear that the name “American” refers to the United States.

That being said, AA’s product to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and secondary Argentina and Brazil is hardly premium. Tired 757s and 767s on MIA-BSB/COR/LIM/VVI, A319s and 737 MAXes with minimal pitch in J and Y on MIA-BOG/CTG/MAO/MDE/PEI/UIO and 737-800s with the standard inconsistent domestic product on MIA-CLO/CCS/GYE/MAR. They get away with it because they’re the only reliable nonstop option on a lot of these.

Then again, LATAM’s product offerings have been steadily declining lately too.

Jim Butler, AA SVP International is in Buenos Aires this week attending the WTTC. He gave this interview explaining the airline's expansion in Argentina, where in 2017 almost 3/4 million paxs flew on AA planes to/from the US.

https://www.cronista.com/negocios/Mas-v ... -0093.html

dcajet wrote:

Jim Butler, AA SVP International is in Buenos Aires this week attending the WTTC. He gave this interview explaining the airline's expansion in Argentina, where in 2017 almost 3/4 million paxs flew on AA planes to/from the US.

https://www.cronista.com/negocios/Mas-v ... -0093.html

As long as the usd remains under valued against the Argentine Peso the demand will remain high and one wonders how long this will be the case

kimbra wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Jim Butler, AA SVP International is in Buenos Aires this week attending the WTTC. He gave this interview explaining the airline's expansion in Argentina, where in 2017 almost 3/4 million paxs flew on AA planes to/from the US.

https://www.cronista.com/negocios/Mas-v ... -0093.html

As long as the usd remains under valued against the Argentine Peso the demand will remain high and one wonders how long this will be the case

Your comment leads to believe you assume that traffic is mostly leisure based and that is no longer the case. Corporate traffic dominates the US-Argentina routes - and that has been the case for the last couple of years. Not that leisure has been decreasing either. Hence why all 3 US airlines operating in Argentina have upgauged their equipment and adding more flights/routes.

See this interview with Delta's Latin American Managing Director: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... a1lk3elWU4

Two months before nonstop service begins between LAX and EZE on AA, advance bookings are very encouraging. The airline is looking at a 79-84% LF for the 3 month period beginning in December. Service will operate 3x w with the 285-seat 787-9. With this flight, AA will have up to 6 daily US-Argentina services on certain days this southern summer and the 4th US destination served by AA from EZE. MIA-COR begins in April' 19.

I do not vouch for that shifting of capacity to Argentina. Not that things are looking any good economically in Brazil, but since AA anounced the expansion in Argentina, the Argentinian economy has taken a sharp turn in the down direction and the Peso has massively devalued, wrong timing.

Slightly off topic, but can an AA 32B do this route, or perhaps a JB Mint-style configured A321? If not to EZE, how about LAX-LIM or LAX-SCL. Curious, and thank you!

seat1a wrote:

Slightly off topic, but can an AA 32B do this route, or perhaps a JB Mint-style configured A321? If not to EZE, how about LAX-LIM or LAX-SCL. Curious, and thank you!

At more than 6,000 nm, there is little chance an A321 could fly the route with anything resembling a profitable payload.

seat1a wrote:

Slightly off topic, but can an AA 32B do this route, or perhaps a JB Mint-style configured A321? If not to EZE, how about LAX-LIM or LAX-SCL. Curious, and thank you!

With LIM at one daily 767/787 each and SCL at 3+ 787 on LA, I doubt there is more room for any more LAX-Perú/Chile flights. When an eventual LA/JJ/AA JV is approved, there wouldn't ne need for AA to put their metal on the route either.

seat1a wrote:

Slightly off topic, but can an AA 32B do this route, or perhaps a JB Mint-style configured A321? If not to EZE, how about LAX-LIM or LAX-SCL. Curious, and thank you!

None of the routes can be flown by an A321 with any meaningful payload. LAX-EZE is over 5,300 nm.

Rafabozzolla wrote:

I do not vouch for that shifting of capacity to Argentina. Not that things are looking any good economically in Brazil, but since AA anounced the expansion in Argentina, the Argentinian economy has taken a sharp turn in the down direction and the Peso has massively devalued, wrong timing.

Ultimately the devaluation in Argentina has made the country more affordable and American stands to profit from that trend as well. As you know, American tourism to Argentina is quite large. While locals traveling abroad has been reduced by 4% in September YoY, arrivals are up 7%, so the trend continues to be positive. And in a worst case scenario, AA will capture the Argentina-California traffic that is less price sensitive and is currently using LA, AV and CM. An 80% LF advance reservations is not bad at all. Not a single long haul flight to/from Argentina has been reduced or cancelled. To the contrary, AA is adding the LAX and COR rotations as well as a third, daytime MIA-EZE run for the upcoming summer, Norwegian goes daily to LGW, Edelweiss starts ZRH service, CM is adding a new route, PTY-SLA, etc.

seat1a wrote:

Slightly off topic, but can an AA 32B do this route, or perhaps a JB Mint-style configured A321? If not to EZE, how about LAX-LIM or LAX-SCL. Curious, and thank you!

Cargo often makes is critical for these routes and an A321 doesn’t carry the pallets

Thanks to all for your replies and thoughts.

If I remember correctly, both UA and AA tried ORD-EZE. I don't think either carrier lasted more than 2 years on the route. So, what does the Los Angeles metro area have going for it that the Chicago metro area lacked?

Just for everyone's info in 2017:

Total P2P round trip pax between LAX and EZE was 86,000 versus 128,000 for GRU.

The average flown fare for GRU was 5% higher than EZE as both routes are nearly the same flying time from LAX.

dcajet wrote:

flyingcat wrote:

Unless I am mistaken AR historically flew the route with a tech stop in the 747 and nonstop with the 340 but I thought I recalled some tech stops occurring seasonally even though it was listed as nonstop.

You are correct. AR flew nonstop with the A340 and before that since 1969, with the 707, 747 and then the A310 with a number of stops (1 or 2).

wedgetail737 wrote:

Isn't this the first time any airline has flown between LAX and EZE since Aerolineas Argentinas served LAX in the 1980's and early 1990's?

AR left LAX in 2001 or 2002. That was the last time there was same-plane service between the two cities. Until December, one can travel on CM, AV, AM, LA, UA. AA or DL with a change of plane at their hubs.

LA 600 was scheduled EZE-SCL-LIM-LAX, ended several years later with the same frame (343 I’m sure, as I flew LA 600/601 both EZE-SCL and LIM-SCL several times)

behramjee wrote:

Just for everyone's info in 2017:

Total P2P round trip pax between LAX and EZE was 86,000 versus 128,000 for GRU.

The average flown fare for GRU was 5% higher than EZE as both routes are nearly the same flying time from LAX.

EZE had no direct flights to LAX in 2017. Direct flights command a premium on the fare.

ckfred wrote:

If I remember correctly, both UA and AA tried ORD-EZE. I don't think either carrier lasted more than 2 years on the route. So, what does the Los Angeles metro area have going for it that the Chicago metro area lacked?

AA only operated for one year. UA did for over 5 years in the 90s and then again for a couple of years in the 2000s.

California and LA in particular have way more business and cultural ties to Argentina than the Midwest. Although Argentinians living in the US are few compared to other Latin nations, there is a rather large Argentinian population in the San Gabriel Valley area (Pasadena, Arcadia).

Chicago is also not geographically well located as a connections' hub coming from EZE, IAH, DFW and ATL do a much better job.

LAXLHR wrote:

Yes, AA is the Latin AMERICAN premium carrier, so they see it as their airline too. After all, down there is America (citizens of the USA forget this).

All the more reason that the AA tail is all wrong!

The true longhauler of the Latin American routes. Best of luck to AA on this one, and it's great that AA has the 789s to make it happen.

Zoedyn wrote:

prchan wrote:

And this comes with the reduction of frequencies on the LAX-GRU route (from daily to 4x weekly)

Hopefully this service would attract a considerable amount of connecting traffic from China, Korea, and Japan, as LAX is favorably located in eastern Pacific to serve as a point of linkage between East Asia and South America, especially countries like Argentina

They would need to compete against all the European/African/Middle East/Oceanian/Mexican/Canadian/American carriers that fly between the two continents with an additional disadvantage of needing to transfer at an American airport. Granted there aren't that many intercontinental nonstop flights from Buenos Aires which also limits 1-stop to Asia competition but still that's that.

behramjee wrote:

Just for everyone's info in 2017:

Total P2P round trip pax between LAX and EZE was 86,000 versus 128,000 for GRU.

The average flown fare for GRU was 5% higher than EZE as both routes are nearly the same flying time from LAX.

EZE is going to be much more difficult than GRU, and AA wouldn't have cut GRU back if it was doing well, even to fund EZE. I have a hard time believing either is any good outside of peak-peak periods.

dcajet wrote:

questions wrote:

Could UA or DL have made the first move on this route — i.e., does AA have any advantage at LAX that gives them a higher probability of success on this route?

They are the #1 carrier at LAX and they own 50% of the Argentina - US market. If anyone can make this route work, it's them.

MalevTU134 wrote:

They've got a lot better brand recognition and FF base in Argentina than the other 2.

United was the # 1 US airline in Argentina for the better part of the 90s - they inherited the Pan Am franchise there, and the largest FF customer base. Unfortunately and due to United's own internal crisis, it was all squandered away and American now pretty much owns Argentina among the US airlines.

Given AA’s presence and market share in LATAM, this route makes sense.

However it’s not clear why DL didn’t jump on this. Is SkyTeam partner AR that weak in Argentina that it could not have helped build and market the route? Certainly DL is strong enough in the LA market to pull its weight from an O&D perspective. Also DL serves enough destinations from its LAX hub to cover most connecting needs for this route, i.e., what does AA have that DL doesn’t that Argentine connecting passengers would want?

dcajet wrote:

Two months before nonstop service begins between LAX and EZE on AA, advance bookings are very encouraging. The airline is looking at a 79-84% LF for the 3 month period beginning in December. Service will operate 3x w with the 285-seat 787-9. With this flight, AA will have up to 6 daily US-Argentina services on certain days this southern summer and the 4th US destination served by AA from EZE. MIA-COR begins in April' 19.

Thats great but are they going to make money off of this route? What are the average business class fares, what are the average coach fares? Is AA selling the Premium Economy seats?

jumbojet wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Two months before nonstop service begins between LAX and EZE on AA, advance bookings are very encouraging. The airline is looking at a 79-84% LF for the 3 month period beginning in December. Service will operate 3x w with the 285-seat 787-9. With this flight, AA will have up to 6 daily US-Argentina services on certain days this southern summer and the 4th US destination served by AA from EZE. MIA-COR begins in April' 19.

Thats great but are they going to make money off of this route? What are the average business class fares, what are the average coach fares? Is AA selling the Premium Economy seats?

'

1-800-American. They will be able to answer your questions, it;s information they love to share. tell them you posted them on A.net. American is known to have these tendencies to open routes that are total money losers... 80+ years doing it.

I hope it does well.

c933103 wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

prchan wrote:

And this comes with the reduction of frequencies on the LAX-GRU route (from daily to 4x weekly)

Hopefully this service would attract a considerable amount of connecting traffic from China, Korea, and Japan, as LAX is favorably located in eastern Pacific to serve as a point of linkage between East Asia and South America, especially countries like Argentina

They would need to compete against all the European/African/Middle East/Oceanian/Mexican/Canadian/American carriers that fly between the two continents with an additional disadvantage of needing to transfer at an American airport. Granted there aren't that many intercontinental nonstop flights from Buenos Aires which also limits 1-stop to Asia competition but still that's that.

The main issue is the way US airports are set up. There's no secure transit zones separating international from domestic. This works great for the US carriers using their own terminals for US citizens but having to clear customs.... which also often means a transit visa needs to be applied for, for a lot of non-US citizens, especially the higher yielding business ones who book last minute, is just too much of a hassle.

There are plenty of good connection options though to EZE from Asia. You can take Air NZ, Air Canada, Emirates, Turkish,British Airways, Air France, KLM, Qatar... and they're all just one stop options. If you don't mind an additional connection to most destinations in Asia you can add in the mix carriers like Qantas, Iberia, Latam, Alitalia and Avianca that will sell you a though fare to a ton of Asian cities(connecting with partner airlines). All won't have that different of a travel time after you figure in the connections. (and in the US's case the need to clear customs) AA certain can connect people on these routes, and they have a very big following in Latin America. A Natural advantage. But just like some of the regulars in the Caribbean all have longer term transit visa's to enable them to connect in MIA, it would need to be pushed hard in these markets and made as cheap and easily as possible for them to get it. They do have a connector at LAX to the TBIT so that could help.

I doubt this route will last longer then a year.

MaverickM11 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

Just for everyone's info in 2017:

Total P2P round trip pax between LAX and EZE was 86,000 versus 128,000 for GRU.

The average flown fare for GRU was 5% higher than EZE as both routes are nearly the same flying time from LAX.

EZE is going to be much more difficult than GRU, and AA wouldn't have cut GRU back if it was doing well, even to fund EZE. I have a hard time believing either is any good outside of peak-peak periods.

Doubt the fares are great but the local markets are huge and there is no competition. GRU has been doubted for years, but here we are, even with the huge Brazil downturn, AA still flies it.

Argentina is a complete mess at the moment.

AA delays the new COR-MIA service originally scheduled to start on April 2019, to June 2019.

Zoedyn wrote:

prchan wrote:

And this comes with the reduction of frequencies on the LAX-GRU route (from daily to 4x weekly)

Hopefully this service would attract a considerable amount of connecting traffic from China, Korea, and Japan, as LAX is favorably located in eastern Pacific to serve as a point of linkage between East Asia and South America, especially countries like Argentina

AA is probably looking to rely on O/D as 3x weekly doesn't fit for business traffic from/to Asia. On top of that, majority of Argentina-Asia traffic these days is being funneled through QR/EK, shorter, daily service and no visa requirement to transit.

marcoantona wrote:

AA delays the new COR-MIA service originally scheduled to start on April 2019, to June 2019.

Before someone starts with "bookings are not what AA expected". the delay has to do with AA2000 (the airport operator) and ANAC (Argentina's Civil Aviation regulator) having disclosed that the work currently ongoing with COR's main runway (18/36 3,200mts)) will be delayed until May 31st, not April 1st as previously expected. That leaves only 5/23 operational, which at 2,200 mts, is not deemed long enough for a safe 767 nonstop operation to MIA with an acceptable payload. New date for the inaugural is now set for June 6th.

UX's daily A332 COR-MAD is not affected as there is an intermediate stop at ASU - less than 500 miles from COR.

upperdeckfan wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

prchan wrote:

And this comes with the reduction of frequencies on the LAX-GRU route (from daily to 4x weekly)

Hopefully this service would attract a considerable amount of connecting traffic from China, Korea, and Japan, as LAX is favorably located in eastern Pacific to serve as a point of linkage between East Asia and South America, especially countries like Argentina

AA is probably looking to rely on O/D as 3x weekly doesn't fit for business traffic from/to Asia. On top of that, majority of Argentina-Asia traffic these days is being funneled through QR/EK, shorter, daily service and no visa requirement to transit.

There is plenty of O&D traffic between California and Argentina & Brazil. How high yields are is another story. That traffic is currently going with the US3 via ATL, DFW and IAH and COPA (via PTY) & LATAM (via LIM) primarily. Most traffic to Asia from EZE/GRU goes via EK,QR, TK and ET these days, with very good fares and daily service. That being said, for flights to Japan, Northern China (PEK and PVG) and Korea, routing via North America is more competitive distance & time wise and the US3 and AC still carry a fair share of that traffic. For most folks that go from deep South America to Asia, a US visa is not an issue.

Quite the change from 20 years ago, when AR and RG (VARIG) reigned supreme on the South America-LAX route with their 747s.

dcajet wrote:

upperdeckfan wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

Hopefully this service would attract a considerable amount of connecting traffic from China, Korea, and Japan, as LAX is favorably located in eastern Pacific to serve as a point of linkage between East Asia and South America, especially countries like Argentina

AA is probably looking to rely on O/D as 3x weekly doesn't fit for business traffic from/to Asia. On top of that, majority of Argentina-Asia traffic these days is being funneled through QR/EK, shorter, daily service and no visa requirement to transit.

There is plenty of O&D traffic between California and Argentina & Brazil. How high yields are is another story. That traffic is currently going with the US3 via ATL, DFW and IAH and COPA (via PTY) & LATAM (via LIM) primarily. Most traffic to Asia from EZE/GRU goes via EK,QR, TK and ET these days, with very good fares and daily service. That being said, for flights to Japan, Northern China (PEK and PVG) and Korea, routing via North America is more competitive distance & time wise and the US3 and AC still carry a fair share of that traffic. For most folks that go from deep South America to Asia, a US visa is not an issue.

Quite the change from 20 years ago, when AR and RG (VARIG) reigned supreme on the South America-LAX route with their 747s.

AC is flying a triangular YYZ-SCL-EZE-YYZ so I doubt they are getting connecting traffic. Regarding transitting in the US isn't only the visa, if you don't carry a US or VWP passport it can take very long to clear inmigration depending on how crowded it is at the time of arrival, therefore you need 3 or more hours to be sure your connection will not get compromised.

Japan, North China and Korea are closer through LAX than DXB/IST/DOH but when you add connecting time and more than one stop if your schedule don't fit 3x weekly EZE-LAX then it's no longer that appealing.

Having said that, I do agree that O/D should be enough for a 3x week 789

upperdeckfan wrote:

dcajet wrote:

upperdeckfan wrote:

AA is probably looking to rely on O/D as 3x weekly doesn't fit for business traffic from/to Asia. On top of that, majority of Argentina-Asia traffic these days is being funneled through QR/EK, shorter, daily service and no visa requirement to transit.

There is plenty of O&D traffic between California and Argentina & Brazil. How high yields are is another story. That traffic is currently going with the US3 via ATL, DFW and IAH and COPA (via PTY) & LATAM (via LIM) primarily. Most traffic to Asia from EZE/GRU goes via EK,QR, TK and ET these days, with very good fares and daily service. That being said, for flights to Japan, Northern China (PEK and PVG) and Korea, routing via North America is more competitive distance & time wise and the US3 and AC still carry a fair share of that traffic. For most folks that go from deep South America to Asia, a US visa is not an issue.

Quite the change from 20 years ago, when AR and RG (VARIG) reigned supreme on the South America-LAX route with their 747s.

AC is flying a triangular YYZ-SCL-EZE-YYZ so I doubt they are getting connecting traffic. Regarding transitting in the US isn't only the visa, if you don't carry a US or VWP passport it can take very long to clear inmigration depending on how crowded it is at the time of arrival, therefore you need 3 or more hours to be sure your connection will not get compromised.

Japan, North China and Korea are closer through LAX than DXB/IST/DOH but when you add connecting time and more than one stop if your schedule don't fit 3x weekly EZE-LAX then it's no longer that appealing.

Having said that, I do agree that O/D should be enough for a 3x week 789

Argentina participates in the US Global Entry program, so standing in line at any US port of entry is really a bad choice or for lack of information if you are a FT. And usually these connections are around 3-4 hours long, so there is time to process all the necessary formalities. AC flies, until April, non stop to EZE & SCL. They both arrive at YYZ in the evening, so westbound Asia connections require an overnight layover. Terrible, but if the price is right, folks will do it.

dcajet wrote:

Before someone starts with "bookings are not what AA expected". (....).

You seem to be very concerned with any statement that puts travel demand to/from Argentina in a negative light.

flyingcat wrote:

Unless I am mistaken AR historically flew the route with a tech stop in the 747 and nonstop with the 340 but I thought I recalled some tech stops occurring seasonally even though it was listed as nonstop.

I flew this route with a stop in Lima.

incitatus wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Before someone starts with "bookings are not what AA expected". (....).

You seem to be very concerned with any statement that puts travel demand to/from Argentina in a negative light.

Cattiness notwithstanding, this was announced on the weekly OAG thread yesterday and all fingers pointed to to light bookings. Turns out that is not the case so why waste time on speculations that are not true? Make of my clarification what you'd like. Meow.

cedars747 wrote:

flyingcat wrote:

Unless I am mistaken AR historically flew the route with a tech stop in the 747 and nonstop with the 340 but I thought I recalled some tech stops occurring seasonally even though it was listed as nonstop.

I flew this route with a stop in Lima.

AR used to fly this route with the 742 on three different routes:

EZE-LIM-MEX-LAX

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-MEX-LAX

Around 1995 the equipment was switched to A310-300 and Mexico was served separately with its dedicated flight:

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-BOG-LAX

Then in 2000 the route was switched to nonstop with the A340-200 and in 2001 AR dropped LAX from its network. AR started flying to LAX in 1968 with the 707 via BOG and MEX or LIM and MEX. The 747 arrived to the route in 1979.

dcajet wrote:

cedars747 wrote:

flyingcat wrote:

Unless I am mistaken AR historically flew the route with a tech stop in the 747 and nonstop with the 340 but I thought I recalled some tech stops occurring seasonally even though it was listed as nonstop.

I flew this route with a stop in Lima.

AR used to fly this route with the 742 on three different routes:

EZE-LIM-MEX-LAX

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-MEX-LAX

Around 1995 the equipment was switched to A310-300 and Mexico was served separately with its dedicated flight:

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-BOG-LAX

Then in 2000 the route was switched to nonstop with the A340-200 and in 2001 AR dropped LAX from its network. AR started flying to LAX in 1968 with the 707 via BOG and MEX or LIM and MEX. The 747 arrived to the route in 1979.

I also remember that some passengers were contaminated aboard the flight after taking off from Lima. Something happend onboard I dont remember exactly? I think it was something to do with the food

cedars747 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

cedars747 wrote:

I flew this route with a stop in Lima.

AR used to fly this route with the 742 on three different routes:

EZE-LIM-MEX-LAX

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-MEX-LAX

Around 1995 the equipment was switched to A310-300 and Mexico was served separately with its dedicated flight:

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-BOG-LAX

Then in 2000 the route was switched to nonstop with the A340-200 and in 2001 AR dropped LAX from its network. AR started flying to LAX in 1968 with the 707 via BOG and MEX or LIM and MEX. The 747 arrived to the route in 1979.

I also remember that some passengers were contaminated aboard the flight after taking off from Lima. Something happend onboard I dont remember exactly? I think it was something to do with the food

Indeed. It was in 1992 on board LV-OOZ, flight AR 1386 EZE-LIM-LAX. During the stopover in LIM the plane was catered with the dinner for the LIM-LAX segment. The appetizer for coach was an avocado shrimp cocktail (those were the days - where would one see a shrimp anywhere in coach these days?). Unfortunately the shrimp was not good and by the time the plane landed in LAX there were folks on board with signs of food poisoning which turned out to be a cholera outbreak, traced back to the shrimp. One person died a few days after arriving in LAX. And so a legal battle ensued that saw AR being kicked out of LIM by the government of then President/dictator Alberto Fujimori as AR had openly accused the LIM caterer, which did not go down well with the Peruvian authorities, AR would not call at LIM for a year or two after the shrimp episode.

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

winginit wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

NYC-EZE (JFK & EWR) was selling for less than $500 r/t last week on AR & UA.

dcajet wrote:

cedars747 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

AR used to fly this route with the 742 on three different routes:

EZE-LIM-MEX-LAX

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-MEX-LAX

Around 1995 the equipment was switched to A310-300 and Mexico was served separately with its dedicated flight:

EZE-LIM-LAX

EZE-BOG-LAX

Then in 2000 the route was switched to nonstop with the A340-200 and in 2001 AR dropped LAX from its network. AR started flying to LAX in 1968 with the 707 via BOG and MEX or LIM and MEX. The 747 arrived to the route in 1979.

I also remember that some passengers were contaminated aboard the flight after taking off from Lima. Something happend onboard I dont remember exactly? I think it was something to do with the food

Indeed. It was in 1992 on board LV-OOZ, flight AR 1386 EZE-LIM-LAX. During the stopover in LIM the plane was catered with the dinner for the LIM-LAX segment. The appetizer for coach was an avocado shrimp cocktail (those were the days - where would one see a shrimp anywhere in coach these days?). Unfortunately the shrimp was not good and by the time the plane landed in LAX there were folks on board with signs of food poisoning which turned out to be a cholera outbreak, traced back to the shrimp. One person died a few days after arriving in LAX. And so a legal battle ensued that saw AR being kicked out of LIM by the government of then President/dictator Alberto Fujimori as AR had openly accused the LIM caterer, which did not go down well with the Peruvian authorities, AR would not call at LIM for a year or two after the shrimp episode.

Ah yes, I remember. I had lasagna.

dcajet wrote:

winginit wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

NYC-EZE (JFK & EWR) was selling for less than $500 r/t last week on AR & UA.

Oof. That's genuinely shocking and a sub $0.05 yield. Storm clouds ahead for US to Argentina capacity me thinks.

winginit wrote:

dcajet wrote:

winginit wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

NYC-EZE (JFK & EWR) was selling for less than $500 r/t last week on AR & UA.

Oof. That's genuinely shocking and a sub $0.05 yield. Storm clouds ahead for US to Argentina capacity me thinks.

Should have said it was a one time deal on Friday only for online purchases and only for selected flights until mid December. I understand it was a hit, not sure if AA had it on offer too. Not sure. Fares during the summer are up to more normal levels.

UA could fill a 744 from EZE-ORD in Dec (who knows the yields), but couldn’t fill a E175 in July. Talk about seasonal routes!

dcajet wrote:

winginit wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

NYC-EZE (JFK & EWR) was selling for less than $500 r/t last week on AR & UA.

These days you can book restricted Y fares for less than 500USD R/T on a lot of TATL routes. I don't think that's an indicative of how healthy a route is.

I'd suggest to take a look at J fares, I don't know about now but earlier this year a colleague of mine did UA's ORD-IAH-EZE R/T in J for 7000USD, that's not a cheap fare at all.

upperdeckfan wrote:

dcajet wrote:

winginit wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this route evolves as yields between the US and Argentina continue to degrade. Even for the peak holiday window we're now seeing round-trip economy fares crumble down into the $800s for both local nonstops and common one-stop flows. Hard to believe those are sustainable or will improve heading into the low season.

NYC-EZE (JFK & EWR) was selling for less than $500 r/t last week on AR & UA.

These days you can book restricted Y fares for less than 500USD R/T on a lot of TATL routes. I don't think that's an indicative of how healthy a route is.

I'd suggest to take a look at J fares, I don't know about now but earlier this year a colleague of mine did UA's ORD-IAH-EZE R/T in J for 7000USD, that's not a cheap fare at all.

Generally speaking peak season for coach/leisure travel is low season for business demand - so this doesn’t bode well for the flight. In the Northern Winter, Argentina flights should be printing cash as its summer down south. If peak season coach fares are being discounted and sold sub $1000RT, I think that raises some red flags....