United applied to the DOT seeking "operational flexibility" to utilize Republic operated E175 instead of mainline 737 for service between Newark and Havana.

Carrier says it maintains a long-term commitment to the market but requires flexibility to better match capacity during periods of lower travel demand, stating that the market is still evolving in nature and faces uncertainties.

They estimate they will start to utilize the Republic aircraft starting September 2018.



OST-2016-0021

=

What’s there real desire?

Or am I missing the joke? Only MIA can support HAV flights : )

FAKE NEWS. If this were their real desires it would be "United seeks to downgauge EWR-HAV service to kite with one seat for carrying chipmunk"

(Load factor still almost zero)

As we've demonstrably seen, few if any of these routes will work outside of MFW...

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

Unless its from MIA or FLL Cuba service won't be easy on the carriers.

Even Delta requested MIA frequencies not any more for ATL.

LAX772LR wrote:

As we've demonstrably seen, few if any of these routes will work outside of MFW...

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

1) I would not hold my breath
2) Agree 100%
3) Agree 100%

The Excitement of opening up Cuba to airlines faded pretty quickly. I won't be surprised if the only flights wind up being the South Florida routes. Not even sure NYC can support consistently.

LAX772LR wrote:

As we've demonstrably seen, few if any of these routes will work outside of MFW...

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

Thank you so much for the truth!

RJNUT wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

As we've demonstrably seen, few if any of these routes will work outside of MFW...

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

Thank you so much for the truth!

Agreed. It's time to end the remaining embargoes. It has been so many years.

Until things ease up, MIA/FLL are probably going to be the only hubs that can make Cuba flights work consistently and profitably.

RJNUT wrote:

DDR wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

Thank you so much for the truth!

Agreed. It's time to end the remaining embargoes. It has been so many years.

Until things ease up, MIA/FLL are probably going to be the only hubs that can make Cuba flights work consistently and profitably.

WN seems to have made TPA work with local Cuban community there, as well..

Makes sense. The Tampa MSA has the 3rd largest Cuban population outside Miami and NYC.

DDR wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

As we've demonstrably seen, few if any of these routes will work outside of MFW...

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

Thank you so much for the truth!

Agreed. It's time to end the remaining embargoes. It has been so many years.

Until things ease up, MIA/FLL are probably going to be the only hubs that can make Cuba flights work consistently and profitably.

WN seems to have made TPA work with local Cuban community there, as well..

Even if the embargo is lifted, that suddenly won't make people flock to Cuba... Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time. Cuba would need a major overhaul from an infrastructure standpoint to be considered "popular" among US visitors. Also remember that you can easily book a cruise with a visit in Havana with no problem, but again, the demand isn't there. So, the embargo has NOTHING to do with US visitors to Cuba.

EvanWSFO wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

DDR wrote:

Agreed. It's time to end the remaining embargoes. It has been so many years.

Until things ease up, MIA/FLL are probably going to be the only hubs that can make Cuba flights work consistently and profitably.

WN seems to have made TPA work with local Cuban community there, as well..

Makes sense. The Tampa MSA has the 3rd largest Cuban population outside Miami and NYC.

Yup. Even based on recent immigration statistics Tampa (as well as Houston) are acquiring new Cuban immigrants in much greater number than NYC.

Cush wrote:

...Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time.

Not so sure what you mean here.

Cuba has successfully attracted Canadian/ European tourists for decades, and its infrastructure is definitely equivalent / better than the Dominican Republic (and much safer).

They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

enilria wrote:

FAKE NEWS. If this were their real desires it would be "United seeks to downgauge EWR-HAV service to kite with one seat for carrying chipmunk"

(Load factor still almost zero)

Regarding "Load factor still almost zero", do you have the numbers to back up such a specious claim? And by that I mean not a "I looked on the online seat maps" or "My cousin's girlfriend's sister's aunt who works in the Catering Department told me...". Not trying to be argumentative, but too often folks on here make claims based on hearsay and/or speculation without sharing their sources as we could all learn from points of good info.

Cush wrote:

So, the embargo has NOTHING to do with US visitors to Cuba.

That is certainly not a conclusion spoken out of familiarity with the issue at hand.

For example:

Cush wrote:

Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for.

Huh? ...since when?

Americans generally flock to all-inclusive beach resorts with excursion options-- Cuba has that in abundance.

Where else in the Caribbean are you going to find something to best the likes of Blau Varadero, et al, that the everyday person can afford?

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Cush wrote:

...Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time.

Not so sure what you mean here.

Cuba has successfully attracted Canadian/ European tourists for decades, and its infrastructure is definitely equivalent / better than the Dominican Republic (and much safer).

They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

As someone who has been to Cuba, I know exactly what he means. The hotels in Cuba are either ridiculously overpriced, not up to the standard that Americans who vacation in the Caribbean are accustomed to or both. The comparison to the DR is flawed in many respects. The hotels/resorts there are no different than those you'd find in other Caribbean destinations. Cuba has a bit more work to do if it ever intends to attract US tourists en masse. I say all of this knowing fully well that it's extremely popular among Europeans and Canadians, attracting more tourists overall than even Jamaica.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Cush wrote:

...Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time.

Not so sure what you mean here.

Cuba has successfully attracted Canadian/ European tourists for decades, and its infrastructure is definitely equivalent / better than the Dominican Republic (and much safer).

They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

It seems like American are in general expecting different services from vacation destinations than what Canadian or European expects?

Brickell305 wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Cush wrote:

...Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time.

Not so sure what you mean here.
Cuba has successfully attracted Canadian/ European tourists for decades, and its infrastructure is definitely equivalent / better than the Dominican Republic (and much safer).
They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

As someone who has been to Cuba, I know exactly what he means. The hotels in Cuba are either ridiculously overpriced, not up to the standard that Americans who vacation in the Caribbean are accustomed to or both. The comparison to the DR is flawed in many respects. The hotels/resorts there are no different than those you'd find in other Caribbean destinations. Cuba has a bit more work to do if it ever intends to attract US tourists en masse. I say all of this knowing fully well that it's extremely popular among Europeans and Canadians, attracting more tourists overall than even Jamaica.

And as someone who has been to Cuba many times, I must disagree with your assessment. It is difficult to get a reasonably priced hotel in Cuba only because tour groups - mostly from Canada and Europe - "block" most of the rooms in the major tourist spots, and especially at the beach resorts, and hold then until the last minute, hoping to fill every property available to them. This leaves only a few rooms on the "open market", and is one reason (1) the remaining rooms become overpriced, and (2) Air B&B has become a great success in Cuba. Additionally, most independent tourists start by seeking a room on Varadero Beach - where the tour groups reign - or in Havana Vieja; where there are a limited number of hotels. That area is great for two or three days, but gets old (no pun intended) after that. You should realize that Cuba is, by far, the largest island in the Caribbean, and has a lot more to offer than Varadero Beach and a few square blocks in the historic quarter.

The fact that Cuba does attract more non-US travelers than Jamaica (and South Americans should be included in those numbers) shows the possibilities are there. Once the USA gets off its sizable posterior and joins the rest of the world, the agencies' hold on Cuba travel will dissipate, and normalcy - in availability, choice, and pricing - should return.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

I find plenty of great pork... and lots of fish, too. Fish tacos have become the big "thing" now.

c933103 wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Cush wrote:

...Cuba doesn't have the infrastructure that a majority of US tourists are looking for. Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica are a few examples of where a majority of travelers go on vacation, and they have all the pieces in place and have for a long time.

Not so sure what you mean here.

Cuba has successfully attracted Canadian/ European tourists for decades, and its infrastructure is definitely equivalent / better than the Dominican Republic (and much safer).

They only lack variety on food (unless you like chicken )

It seems like American are in general expecting different services from vacation destinations than what Canadian or European expects?

Maybe posters are comparing Cuba to the american Caribbean - PR, virgin islands, FL keys, ect where everything is similar to the rest of america save for the environment

Judge1310 wrote:

enilria wrote:

FAKE NEWS. If this were their real desires it would be "United seeks to downgauge EWR-HAV service to kite with one seat for carrying chipmunk"

(Load factor still almost zero)

Regarding "Load factor still almost zero", do you have the numbers to back up such a specious claim? And by that I mean not a "I looked on the online seat maps" or "My cousin's girlfriend's sister's aunt who works in the Catering Department told me...". Not trying to be argumentative, but too often folks on here make claims based on hearsay and/or speculation without sharing their sources as we could all learn from points of good info.

Based on T-100 for October 2017 HAV LF by destination (airline-indifferent):

80%+: MIA
60-79%: IAH, TPA
40-59%: ATL, FLL, MCO
20-39%: EWR, JFK, LAX, CLT

RushmoreAir wrote:

20-39%: EWR, JFK, LAX, CLT

Judge1310 wrote:

enilria wrote:

FAKE NEWS. If this were their real desires it would be "United seeks to downgauge EWR-HAV service to kite with one seat for carrying chipmunk"

(Load factor still almost zero)

Regarding "Load factor still almost zero", do you have the numbers to back up such a specious claim? And by that I mean not a "I looked on the online seat maps" or "My cousin's girlfriend's sister's aunt who works in the Catering Department told me...". Not trying to be argumentative, but too often folks on here make claims based on hearsay and/or speculation without sharing their sources as we could all learn from points of good info.

The bad news, even an idiot like me has access to T100, and the good news is that somebody else posted it before I did. 20-39% is horrendous. I rest my case.

BTW, great sense of humor.

The surprise is all of this has to be IAH which is doing fairly well. I would assume that is a testament to the Cubans that have moved to Houston that a previous poster mentioned.

Been to Cuba and the DR, I’ll take Cuba any day. The hotel I stayed at in Havana was perfectly fine (El Nacional) and the food excellent. All the way from the Paladares to the restaurants. Plenty of Americans, Canadians and Europeans from what I saw all around the island. Back to topic, NJ has a large Cuban community, if they struggle to fill flights to HAV I imagine ATL/CLT/TPA must be doing terribly.

chepos wrote:

Been to Cuba and the DR, I’ll take Cuba any day. The hotel I stayed at in Havana was perfectly fine (El Nacional) and the food excellent. All the way from the Paladares to the restaurants. Plenty of Americans, Canadians and Europeans from what I saw all around the island. Back to topic, NJ has a large Cuban community, if they struggle to fill flights to HAV I imagine ATL/CLT/TPA must be doing terribly.

TPA has a similarly sized Cuban community as NYC. Don't put it in the same category as CLT and TPA.

FWIW, I've been to Cuba, DR and Mexico.

And for the same price, Cuba usually had better hotels and better safety.

Maybe some Canadian tour operators (Air Transat?) got a better deals on some fine Cuban hotels? (While not as much in DR and Mexico?)

enilria wrote:

RushmoreAir wrote:

20-39%: EWR, JFK, LAX, CLT

Judge1310 wrote:

enilria wrote:

FAKE NEWS. If this were their real desires it would be "United seeks to downgauge EWR-HAV service to kite with one seat for carrying chipmunk"

(Load factor still almost zero)

Regarding "Load factor still almost zero", do you have the numbers to back up such a specious claim? And by that I mean not a "I looked on the online seat maps" or "My cousin's girlfriend's sister's aunt who works in the Catering Department told me...". Not trying to be argumentative, but too often folks on here make claims based on hearsay and/or speculation without sharing their sources as we could all learn from points of good info.

The bad news, even an idiot like me has access to T100, and the good news is that somebody else posted it before I did. 20-39% is horrendous. I rest my case.

BTW, great sense of humor.

One thing for sure in our great country ... When someone says fake news - they don't know what they are talking about. Starts at the top.

30 percent in October gets higher in the summer and looks better with aircraft flexibility.

Go back to watching Fox and Friends or Hannity.

N212R wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

...and that isn't likely to change until the USA (1) gets a functional Congress that (2) gets past the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo, then (3) lifts the ridiculous restrictions holding back route development.

The only thing ridiculous is believing that everything BUT the bankrupt Cuban "revolution" is responsible for the fact that few people are interested in visiting a decidedly less than paradisical island location. The market has spoken. It isn't the USA that needs changing before a viable tourist economy can be established.

The ignorance masquerading as fact in that response, is astonishing.

Let's address it:
First, please explain how operations covered by regulatory restrictions on who can operate what and to where, combined with limitations on the type of passenger due to ancestral, occupational, or educational limitations.... constitutes "the market." I'd certainly like to hear that.

Second, it's "paradisiacal."

Third, no, it's quite ridiculous one country insists/persists with a 60yr embargo meant to stymie relations with a communist entity; when that same country openly and actively pursues relations with other communist nations (China, Vietnam) and even absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia).

TPA-HAV is doing fine. The market supports 9x weekly service year round - if it were so terrible, that would have retraced ages ago. A VFR tot operator doesn't procure two weekly 737 charters year round to secure market share against WN.

To say nothing of the year-round TPA-SNU flights, or seasonal runs go HOG and CMW. No other city outside of SFL has held down four Cuban gateways for years.

It's all the better if load factors are low. Republic's United fleet cannot go more than 50nm off shore, meaning that a direct route from EWR to HAV is impossible. The coastal route would be 1200 nm, and if EYW isn't viable as an alternate, these flights will have to carry fuel for MIA or CUN as their alternate. That plus a 1200-mile flight will mean that they can't carry 76 people.

747-600X wrote:

It's all the better if load factors are low. Republic's United fleet cannot go more than 50nm off shore, meaning that a direct route from EWR to HAV is impossible. The coastal route would be 1200 nm, and if EYW isn't viable as an alternate, these flights will have to carry fuel for MIA or CUN as their alternate. That plus a 1200-mile flight will mean that they can't carry 76 people.

Republic is already EOW certified by the FAA on the legacy AA E175's so getting EOW certification for UA E175's for a late September / October transfer of service should not be too much of a problem. Even if this mean it delays launching E175 service to late in the fall it would not be too much of an issue. It gives plenty of time for YX to get the FA's thru online certification for the EOW differences - which really are minor. Once EOW certified, it can go EWR-HAV with 100% load factor and non stop without a problem. AA uses its YX EOW 175's out of MIA with plenty of ease and frequently. Word is that was in the works already for United and Republic (EOW certification) as they beef up YX flying out of IAH for UA, YX just announced IAH Base opening.

miaskies wrote:

747-600X wrote:

It's all the better if load factors are low. Republic's United fleet cannot go more than 50nm off shore, meaning that a direct route from EWR to HAV is impossible. The coastal route would be 1200 nm, and if EYW isn't viable as an alternate, these flights will have to carry fuel for MIA or CUN as their alternate. That plus a 1200-mile flight will mean that they can't carry 76 people.

Republic is already EOW certified by the FAA on the legacy AA E175's so getting EOW certification for UA E175's for a late September / October transfer of service should not be too much of a problem. Even if this mean it delays launching E175 service to late in the fall it would not be too much of an issue. It gives plenty of time for YX to get the FA's thru online certification for the EOW differences - which really are minor. Once EOW certified, it can go EWR-HAV with 100% load factor and non stop without a problem. AA uses its YX EOW 175's out of MIA with plenty of ease and frequently. Word is that was in the works already for United and Republic (EOW certification) as they beef up YX flying out of IAH for UA, YX just announced IAH Base opening.

YX has considered getting the EOW equipment and certifications on their United birds in the past, but decided against it. The addition of one new station at an airport which can be reached without EOW certification is not likely to change that. The AA EOW 175s they operate take weight restrictions all the time. Even flights as short as MIA-CMW are often weight restricted. The longer flights, like MIA-FDF, and many over-land routes (MIA-MSP, EWR-DFW) are also weight-restricted. The E-Jets just aren't built for 1200+ mile journeys. On a clear day, sure, but if any bad weather pops up or an alternate is required, there's trouble. YX requires all international flights to have alternates, so Havana flights would have to carry that extra fuel. Also, Cuba flights in general tend to be VERY heavy on bags. MIA-CMW and MIA-CFG flights are usually booked to capacity (76 pax) with upwards of 120 bags. It's crazy.

747-600X wrote:

miaskies wrote:

747-600X wrote:

YX has considered getting the EOW equipment and certifications on their United birds in the past, but decided against it. The addition of one new station at an airport which can be reached without EOW certification is not likely to change that. The AA EOW 175s they operate take weight restrictions all the time. Even flights as short as MIA-CMW are often weight restricted. The longer flights, like MIA-FDF, and many over-land routes (MIA-MSP, EWR-DFW) are also weight-restricted. The E-Jets just aren't built for 1200+ mile journeys. On a clear day, sure, but if any bad weather pops up or an alternate is required, there's trouble. YX requires all international flights to have alternates, so Havana flights would have to carry that extra fuel. Also, Cuba flights in general tend to be VERY heavy on bags. MIA-CMW and MIA-CFG flights are usually booked to capacity (76 pax) with upwards of 120 bags. It's crazy.

Really? I've done lots of the EOW flying, and lots of the long routes such as MIA-MSP-MIA, and even IAH-BOI, EWR-AUS, EWR-DFW and actual EOW flights where EOW was required and I've never been weight restricted once, even with a full aircraft and a large load of bags. I've done MIA-MSP in the winter fighting 100 knot headwinds and never taken a restriction, so the aircraft are perfectly capable of doing those runs.

7673mech wrote:

Go back to watching Fox and Friends or Hannity.

So, you really didn't get the joke at all. I'll help out. Chipmunks rarely pay to fly, and few use kites for transportation.

UA announced on its earning posting that they have tentative approval to take the Houston IAH to Havana HAV to daily service.

The current flight, though Sat. only seems to be doing "fine". Outside of Florida it would seem Houston makes sense for UA as there is some local demand and they can funnel all the west of the Mississippi demand through Houston. It seems they are in it for the long term.

I'm sure plenty of people would love to visit Cuba, but if hardly anyone is allowed to go then it's hardly surprising that the flights are running empty. I would have loved to visit Cuba as a side trip last time I was in the US, but as far as I know I would have been denied boarding for not having some kind of special permit that the US requires.

Approved by DOT today

OST-2016-0021