FlyHappy wrote:

.



North Atlantic islands are niche destination, and airlines (at least US based) don't do niche that well; they do mass-market.

[/quote][/quote]


US based carriers do niche. What they don't do is speculative highly seasonal relatively long distance travel. These islands aren't even promoted in the USA. It is only the most travel focused who have even heard of these places as destinations for leisure travel. To most Cape Verde is where the transatlantic hurricanes start, some islands close to Africa. They have no concept of the Canaries and the Azores might be some speck on the map while flying to Europe.

I don't think that these islands even want US tourism as their hotels are designed for the Euro traveler and their offerings based on the needs of Euro tour operators. Its the same reason why US carriers don't fly to the Greek Islands.

mikejepp wrote:

The Azores, Canary Islands, Cape Verde

Never heard of em.

Signed,
95% of America.

SCQ83 wrote:

[Canarias had 16 million tourists in 2017, the largest nationalities being

1. UK 5.2 million
2. Germany 3.1 million
3. Spain (mainland) 1.6 million

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/notic ... 5-mas-2016

However islands are somehow split by nationalities. Germans are the 1st tourist group in Gran Canaria, while British are the first in Tenerife. Bear in mind that, when in Spain, British and German tourists do not like to mingle with each other, so tour operators tend to keep them in different hotels or areas... and if it is in different islands, it is much better

Canarias are a real melting pot of European visitors, tourists profiles from selected countries (in English):

http://turismodeislascanarias.com/en/ge ... l-profile/

sspontak wrote:

Delta recently started nonstop service from JFK to PDL (Ponta Delgada - Azores) utilizing the 757 with D1 service. The fight is just under 6 hours.

There is no D1 service on this route. It's Premium Select, Comfort Plus, and Economy.

I was on the inaugural. Also, I have the ability to say I was the first ever DL passenger to deplane in the Azores!

Forgive this massive post. Feel flattered that you have written enough worthwhile things I feel compelled to respond to

guyanam wrote:

Norwegian offers by far the cheapest airfares from the USA to the French Antilles. They can only support this during the winter when they run 8x weekly.

Bingo. But Norwegian has no US feed at all, so if you don't live in BWI or JFK territory , the tourist areas of the French Antilles are economically disadvantaged.

guyanam wrote:

Aside from that AA rusn 1x nonstop from MIA. AF flies a milk run service from MIA 5x stopping in PAP and continuing on to FDF.

yeeeeeeahhhh.... lets talk about that; for much of the US, those AA flights are either $700 - $800 1 or 2 stop flights, AND only if you can fly on a Saturday or the AF flights are 3 stop ordeals spanning up to 29hours of clock time (and may cost you $1000+) . Basically if you aren't originating in MIA, this is not an appealing option. The travel time from Europe might be less!

guyanam wrote:

Based on this we can infer that neither PTP nor FDF are popular Caribbean destinations for US tourists. And it isnt because they dont have passports. Compare service to nearby ANU, UVF or even SKB.

Thank you for having a level head about the passport thing.
But chicken and egg on the "popular for US tourists" part. Gotta be easier and cheaper for US originating tourists to get to those islands, and for that to happen, someone must promote as destinations; can't expect the airlines to do that job.

guyanam wrote:

It appears that when an American wants from a resort differs from what Europeans want. Dont bring up notions of spolied prima donnas wanting all inclusive resorts because these are most favored by Euro and Canadians arriving on comprehensive tour packages.

I am not sure that you can draw that conclusion about differences in resort desires about Americans and Europeans. I repeatedly see the exact same resorts and hotels in this region that cater simultaneously (or seasonally) to Germans, Brits, Swedes, Canadians, Argentines, Russians, and USAicans. For real. that alone indicates to me that there are large swathes of tourist/travelers from all those very different places whom are willing to pay for the same kind of vacation experience. I'd suggest that its more about the presence, or lack therof of "vacation bundlers". In EU/Canada/Russia, charter flights are must more common and so all that is left is to sell the all-inclusive resort (maybe only a choice of one!) part to 150 - 300 people and fill the flight. The US tourist is virtually always going to be on a scheduled mainline flight.... so even though they may buy as a "bundle" also, the backend arrangement is far, far different.

guyanam wrote:

Americans from the east coast also travel in the summer. In fact Jamaica sees limited seasonal variation from these markets. The winter focused US travel is that from New England and the Midwest. Summer is the peak for those from the southern states, which are now an increasing source of tourists.

Very true, though don't ignore the US West coast, which will also heavily travel in summer and Christmas time to Hawaii, Pacific Mexico and Europe!

guyanam wrote:

What can be said with credibility is that, with the large numbers of domestic vacation spots Americans don't like to travel long distances if they can avoid it. Jamaica and the Bahamas do well because they are quite close.

only if by "quite close" you mean the SE quadrant of the US, containing perhaps 1/3 of the US population
I get what you are saying is that Americans have more vacation spots available, domestically, than any single European country - but, the long distance thing isn't really true. The distance from Milwaukee to Montego Bay, Jamaica is greater than that of from Munich to Cairo. Culturally, which one is further, you tell me

guyanam wrote:

Americans don't do the "annual vacation trip" They prefer several short trips sprinkled throughout the year.

ehhhhh.......... I'm gonna call you out on this one. Kind of.
An extremely high % of Americans are probably limited to 1 or 0 long distance vacations per year. There's a smallish minority (10% or less, is my guess) that have the time and money to fly away (or equivalent) more than once per year. Having said that, its important to draw a line somewhere, and perhaps here is where the US vs European difference is most obvious.

Large numbers of Americans take weekend/long weekends to "go to the lake/cabin/beach/mountains/campground", this is true. If you count automobile trips of a few hours that span a weekend, and total 3 or 4 days, then yes - Americans take "several short trips" per year. to me, that is not a vacation - that is merely a "leisure weekend", and shouldn't be confused with vacations that involve air travel, regardless of distance.

FlyHappy wrote:

North Atlantic islands are niche destination, and airlines (at least US based) don't do niche that well; they do mass-market.

guyanam wrote:

US based carriers do niche. What they don't do is speculative highly seasonal relatively long distance travel.

isn't that pretty much a definition of "niche" in the aviation context?
if not - tell me what niche destination are served by US carriers for leisure purposes? I am curious. I suppose you will cite small ski resorts, perhaps? If so, those are ludicrous high yielding routes that often have little, if any scheduled competition and sometimes feature things like private airfields for the very well healed.

guyanam wrote:

These islands aren't even promoted in the USA. It is only the most travel focused who have even heard of these places as destinations for leisure travel.

They aren't. Promotion costs money, and who's gonna spend that, if not themselves? Look into the advertising budget the country of Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas and others put into the US to promote and maintain their image as wonderful places to visit and relax. How much do the Azores or Guadeloupe (France?) spend?

guyanam wrote:

I don't think that these islands even want US tourism as their hotels are designed for the Euro traveler and their offerings based on the needs of Euro tour operators.

I agree. But its unlikely that the hotels are designed any differently. Hotels the world over equally satisfy tourists, be they from Nice, Brighton, Kyoto or Austin. Maybe its simply because the EU provides all the tourist flow that is desired?

guyanam wrote:

Its the same reason why US carriers don't fly to the Greek Islands.

No! No! No!
The Greek islands, individually, are tiny, tiny destinations (aviation wise) for US tourists! Thats like asking why Aegean Airlines doesn't fly to San Antonio or Nashville. Really? But that doesn't mean there aren't numbers of US tourists to Greece - there are, always have been. Simply put - the long haul economics just do not work. The US3 have not gotten to be among the most profitable operators globally by being idiots. US tourists want to go visit the Greek Islands? Sure - we'll take you to LHR, AMS, CDG, FCO, ATH, and our partners will take you from there. Its the sound business choice. the US3 literally flying into Greek Island airports is a ridiculous idea, and the lack of those routes say absolutely nothing about the level of US tourism interest to those locations.... nothing at all.

Perhaps a great ad campaign featuring Cristiano Ronaldo for Madeira? Just based on the very slim hope you’ll find a romantic weekend with him or a lookalike!
I would assume that with any potential destination that every airline has looked at these islands and simply realized there wasn’t a market from the USA. For whatever reason. Otherwise there would be one or more.
Which leads me to asking has any airline ever tried it other than refueling? When 747s were landing there for a fuel stop did they offer a chance to get off the plane for a few days?
I would also think that TAP or Iberia would have studied a nonstop flight to NYC etc. They could potentially get Portuguese and Spanish Americans who wanted to vacation there as well as some adventuresome Americans looking for something new.

Pepper456 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

There have been [mostly tourist charters] to the Canary islands in the past. As others have said, with the dawning of more low-cost, point-to-point flying, it's likely that in the future some connections to the Spanish archipelago will be established.
The Azores are already linked.
Personally I don't think we will see direct flights to either Madeira (one single island with limited appeal for US tourists) or to Cape Verde (again, this is a vacation spot mostly for Europeans).

Madeira has two islands FNC (Funchal) and PXO (Porto Santo), DY can do this route with their 737 MAX or UA with their MAX also...
PXO is an alternate airport when planes cant arrive in FNC due to winds (FNC its one of the most difficult airports in the world to arrive)...

Indeed, I know. And Madeira is very beautiful... But Madeira is big for northern Europeans (only 4hrs away), and particularly for Brits - no need really for US residents to schlepp all the way to Madeira, unless perhaps already visiting Portugal.... And Porto Santo is small and frankly a pretty boring place.

Americans have the Caribbean (and frankly these are a better proposition TBH...) at half the distance, so DY would have a hard time convincing prospective customers to fly 7 or 8 hours on a 737 to (often rainy) Madeira where the Atlantic ocean is so cold you can't even swim.....

Btw TFS has flights as far as Moscow (Aeroflot or S7) or Tel Aviv (SmartWings) catered to Russian or Israeli tourists.

In the GCMap, TFS to New York is comparable to TFS to Moscow. TLV is shorter on the GCMap but since they must avoid Algerian airspace, the real length is higher.

TFS TLV 3,068 mi
TFS DME 3,272 mi
TFS JFK 3,324 mi

RTW00 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Someone should open a low cost hub in Gran Canaria for Europe _ South America traffic . Turn it into the KEF of the South

To where? Africa? There are very few US flights to the continent. If there was more profit, they could be flying nonstop already. Even African airlines cannot be profitable. I would say most all flights are low yield, with JNB being an exception but even then not sure.

For many southern Europen destinations eg. LIS, MAD and also to FCO and northern African cities it is better to connect through PDL than KEF from the eastern US. So if the right airline proposes a connection route (or even WOW) through PDL for these destinations, it will be a success.

I still don't see the need. The cities you listed have flights to cities on both continents in the western hemisphere. The only scenario that a hub in Gran Canaria would be attractive is to offer destinations with no TATL coverage. That in itself is a question because there's probably a reason why they don't already have service.

Not all destinations offer the same type of experience. For instance, Madeira has become quite popular in Europe because it offers mild winters only 3 hours away from UK and Germany. It is a good escape if you are running away from 0ºC to get 20ºC in December or January, and it´s probably the shortest flight you will get to wintery sun (just like the Canaries). People who travel to Madeira are not looking for 40ºC temperature nor wall to wall sunshine. Same for the Azores.

So it all really depends if there is market for people in the US looking for a mix bag of European experience, together with generally high-class services and hotels, nature lovers and not just a pure beach destination. I guess not, because no one has really tried it. I guess NYC-FNC would be just over 6h flight. Not much, so maybe TAP can give it a go for some time when the A321neo is available.

For the same reasons you really don't see nonstop service from Europe to Hawaii... Distance, flight time, costs, and the fact that there are competing beach locales closer to home. Why fly to Hawaii, pretty as it is, when you've got the Riviera so close by? The same thing applies here for Atlantic island travel. Also, those islands aren't terribly well-known here in the US. The average person would know little to nothing about them, so it would strictly be a niche market. Were these islands interested in more American tourists, then a significant marketing campaign may change things. Personally, I'd love to try them, and I'm on the West Coast, but that's just me.

iflyalexair wrote:

sspontak wrote:

Delta recently started nonstop service from JFK to PDL (Ponta Delgada - Azores) utilizing the 757 with D1 service. The fight is just under 6 hours.

There is no D1 service on this route. It's Premium Select, Comfort Plus, and Economy.

I was on the inaugural. Also, I have the ability to say I was the first ever DL passenger to deplane in the Azores!

Yes, this was corrected after my initial misstated post. I originally looked at the fare choices too quickly on DL.com and saw D1 on this JFK-PDL itinerary and assumed D1 was offered but it actually said "Not Offered" when I looked again.

Were you in Premium Select? If so , how was the service?

Hopefully you enjoyed the Azores!

I just returned yesterday from PDL on Delta, on the last leg of my vacation to Portugal and the Azores.
I was very impressed with the Azores and I think they are way underrated. Most of my friends didnt know what an Azore was or where they were located or why i was going there, but I was an amazing experience: Very civilized, very clean, very nice people and beautiful scenery.
My best friend flew there from NYC for the long weekend and we went to hot springs, a beach with hot water pouring in from the mountains, beautiful lakes and a couple of museums. It was easy to drive around and inexpensive, compared to mainland Europe.
My friend said that they JFK-PDL was packed, but the fligh yesterday had several empty rows in the back (which i grabbed to take a nice sleep).

I also visited Terceira, the next island, a 30 minute flight on SATA, and was so amazingly beautiful too. Their main city, Angra do Heroismo, is an Unesco site and has a lot of history. A very nice colonial type city with beautiful buildings and several museums. I wanted to go to Pico also, the highest mountain in Portugal, but didnt have time to fly to other islands.

I have also visited the other "Atlantic Islands" mentioned, but I think the Azores has the highest prospect of attracting Americans/Canadians because it is an easy/shorter flight from NYC/BOS/YYZ (and even San Francisco/OAK when they have seasonal flights to Terceira).

I visited these islands on cruises:
Maderia: Very beautiful, lots of mountains and very green. Would like to go back to spend more time.
Cabo Verde: visited two islands, the main city and a national park with a volcano. Didn't go to the island where the nice beaches are. Don't feel the need to return.
Sao Tome & Principe: Principe had a very nice resort in a jungle like setting, which resembles a Caribbean island. Sao Tome is very small with Portuguese colonial architecture. Too far and complicated to visit again.
Canaries: Love Lanzarote because it was designed by an architect. They limit mass tourism and go for high end tourism to avoid becoming another Gran Canaria (where the fun is, but full of cheap ugly hotels). Tenerife is more interesting as a city and with the volcano. Have been to these island twice already.

Funny seeing this post now, as I'm sitting in an AirBNB in Ponta Delgada, on a stopover on my way home from a week on Madeira.

In my experience, there's not much awareness of the Atlantic islands among the general population in the US. A lot of the comments here tend to reinforce that (for example, there's basically nothing in common between, say, The Azores and The Bahamas; yet comments in this thread are suggesting that American's would rather go to the Caribbean for the same experience).

I only became aware of The Azores and Madeira through aviation (seeing SATA at BOS, and being aware of FNC's awesome runway). Most of my friends and relatives, while they may be aware of the islands' existence, have no idea what they're missing. There's no marketing of these islands in the States, and there's a very small population of previous visitors to sell by word of mouth. Of any of the islands mentioned in this thread, The Canaries are by far the most well known.

SATA has held on with BOS/PVD/YYZ-PDL flights for years, primarily flying friends/relatives/immigrants of Portuguese descent. There's a huge community of Azorians (and other Portugese) in Fall River, MA and the surrounding areas of Mass. and Rhode Island; that population has supported the existing flights, not so much tourists.

On my BOS-PDL flight last week, I'd estimate that ~80% of the Americans onboard were simply connecting on to mainland Portugal, rather than stopping in The Azores.

Honestly I'm glad that there isn't much service to The Azores. The Azores are beautiful primarily because of their unspoiled natural beauty. Having visited a year ago compared to today, there are more people. I don't think this island will be able to support too many more flights without losing its charm. As a tourist who wants to go back to Madeira, The Azores, Cabo Verde, The Canaries, etc; I'm a little annoyed by how long it takes to get there from the US. As a tourist who doesn't necessarily like other tourists spoiling the view...I like it the way it is.

The Canary Islands are the European Florida. Mostly a tourist destination with price sensitive customers. And while beautiful (especially La Palma) the mainland might still be more interesting for Americans wanting to explore Europe, while the distance is too wide to fly there to simply lay on the beach.

FlyHappy wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

there are very few Caribbean islands where you need a US passport.

seriously, what are you talking about?
the only places in the Caribbean where a passport isn't required are the US territories of Puerto Rico and USVI.

All of those many other sovereign nation islands - Bahamas, DR, Jamaica, on and on and on.... absolutely require a passport. I hope you are not thinking that those countries may let you in (which they might) - but re-entering the US sans passport will present a *major* problem.

passports are being carried by the millions of US tourists who visit the islands, this is a fact.

I guess it depends on how you arrive there. I've been to the vast majority of Caribbean islands via cruise ships and have never presented a passport at any of them.

FlyHappy wrote:

Forgive this massive post. Feel flattered that you have written enough worthwhile things I feel compelled to respond to

[No! No! No!
The Greek islands, individually, are tiny, tiny destinations (aviation wise) for US tourists! Thats like asking why Aegean Airlines doesn't fly to San Antonio or Nashville. Really? But that doesn't mean there aren't numbers of US tourists to Greece - there are, always have been. Simply put - the long haul economics just do not work. The US3 have not gotten to be among the most profitable operators globally by being idiots. US tourists want to go visit the Greek Islands? Sure - we'll take you to LHR, AMS, CDG, FCO, ATH, and our partners will take you from there. Its the sound business choice. the US3 literally flying into Greek Island airports is a ridiculous idea, and the lack of those routes say absolutely nothing about the level of US tourism interest to those locations.... nothing at all.

Interesting comments. .

1. Niche markets that makes sense are those with narrow clientele but where there is sufficient and predictable year end demand. So Roatan and Bonaire will be examples within the Caribbean. Mykonos isn't. Even though large numbers of people on the East Coast know of it this is highly seasonal (4 months max) so not worthy of direct service even though the demand likely exceeds that for Roatan and maybe even Bonaire. Better for those who are really motivated to fly there to do so via Euro hubs as you pointed out.

2. PTP and FDF aren't a chicken or an egg. Up to the early 80s they were a popular destination for US visitors in part because of the Club Med. EA ran daily afternoon MIA departures to each with PTP being accessed sometimes with an ANU stop and with nonstop service on days when it continued to FDF or UVF. AA ran Sa/Su DC10 flights from JFK on a round robin basis to both islands. Pan Am also offered service to those islands for a short while. When AA set up its SJU hub Eagle flew to those islands until this hub was closed.

These islands came on stream before others like St Lucia, Grenada, Anguilla, St Barth's and St Kitts/Nevis. They lost popularity because both Americans and French Antilleans are monolingual. Clearly speaking different languages this created service problems and Americans shifted as more English speaking islands became available. And with that service disappeared except for AF's route. It is designed for French Antilles residents who wish to visit MIA. I think that PAP MIA is the bulk of the MIA leg. I think the PTP sector is more for travel to/from Haiti. There is a huge Haitian population on that island.

Norwegian is an attempt by the French Antilles to regain some US market share. They realize that they are too dependent on French visitors so wish to diversify. Given that this is an extremely low yield service it can only operate when loads are best and that is in the winter. They also focus on the NY and SoFL markets which are the largest sources of US visitors to the E/Caribbean. New England and the VA/MD metro area didn't work. As you said there is limited connectivity for non gateway travel so the focus is on the markets which generate heavy O&D. That is the focus of their promotions as well. The mainland French gov't no doubt underwrites this promotion, and maybe subsidies and aim to make this islands more self supporting and less dependent on budgetary support from Paris.

3. As others have pointed out these islands (excluding Cape Verde) aren't comparable to the Caribbean. I am not sure if the length of time that it takes to get to Cape Verde makes sense when the Caribbean is right there. Not to disregard what the Cape Verde have on offer but the Caribbean offers the same and in more scenic environments. While the question is worthy comparisons with the Caribbean aren't relevant. I think that BDA might be more comparable to Azores/Madeira Not in terms of product but the fact that none of these islands are warm weather destinations. BDA is closer to the US though. Virtually a "domestic" flight. Those who really wish to visit these islands will find a way but there aren't enough to justify either promoting the US market or in attracting carriers to fly those routes aside from VFR markets.

4. For people in the NY area Bahamas is a 2 1/2 hour trip and Montego Bay 3 1/2 hours. Good enough for the Th-Su trip with a morning departure and a late evening return. Many do this. Just as they do long weekend trips to FL. This is why Jamaica and The Bahamas are year round destinations. Their appeal isn't just to the winter crowd, except for those in the far Midwest like Minneapolis. Chicago is almost as close to NYC for those islands as they lie slightly west of NY. So it isn't just FL, GA and NC which provide the spring/summer travel.

PennPal wrote:

I guess it depends on how you arrive there. I've been to the vast majority of Caribbean islands via cruise ships and have never presented a passport at any of them.

The ID that you presented to the cruise line is made available to each island that you visit plus on re-entry to the USA. Believe me your visits aren't incognito. If you didn't re-board the boat the local authorities would have been informed. Criminals have tried to escape jurisdictions but to their shock they were quickly picked up when they attempted to illegally remain on an island.

PennPal wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

there are very few Caribbean islands where you need a US passport.

seriously, what are you talking about?
the only places in the Caribbean where a passport isn't required are the US territories of Puerto Rico and USVI.

All of those many other sovereign nation islands - Bahamas, DR, Jamaica, on and on and on.... absolutely require a passport. I hope you are not thinking that those countries may let you in (which they might) - but re-entering the US sans passport will present a *major* problem.

passports are being carried by the millions of US tourists who visit the islands, this is a fact.

I guess it depends on how you arrive there. I've been to the vast majority of Caribbean islands via cruise ships and have never presented a passport at any of them.

Well, considering we are talking about aviation, either to Eastern Atlantic, Caribbean island nations, or anywhere else - lack of a passport will get you denied boarding at the US airport of departure. So that's a pretty big problem to start with.

Cruise travel in the Caribbean is a different beast. These (mostly) little island port towns aren't interested in hassling 2000 daytime tourists with a big immigration queue who have 6 hours to spend money in their port.
The issue isn't entry into other countries, its the return to the US. An exception is made for "closed loop" trips that begin and end at the same US port (Port Canaveral, etc).

If you fly on an aircraft out of the US, you need a passport, full stop.; and it will be checked before you board. Its as simple as that, and there are no exceptions beyond the US territories.

FlyHappy wrote:

PennPal wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Cruise travel in the Caribbean is a different beast. These (mostly) little island port towns aren't interested in hassling 2000 daytime tourists with a big immigration queue who have 6 hours to spend money in their port.
.

The US authorities definitely want to know who is disembarking upon return and most islands so want some idea as to whether everyone who disembarked re-boarded the ship. The lines have this info and it is presented to the relevant authorities.

seahawk wrote:

The Canary Islands are the European Florida. Mostly a tourist destination with price sensitive customers. And while beautiful (especially La Palma) the mainland might still be more interesting for Americans wanting to explore Europe, while the distance is too wide to fly there to simply lay on the beach.

That doesn't explain the name of the main tourist town on Tenerife "Playa de las Americas" which literally means "Beach of the Americans". I know Playa del Ingles (Beach of the English) on Gran Canaria is called like that because it was the favourite place to go by foreigners who visited the island, and to the natives in Gran Canaria every foreigner was English even if in reality they were German, Scandinavian, Dutch, Irish, whatever. So in Gran Canaria it makes sense. But how come the beach in Tenerife was named Beach of the Americans when Tenerife isn't frequently visited by Americans at all?

By the way, there are quite some Europeans that fly out to the Caribbean simply to lay on the beach as well. Why wouldn't it work the other way around? If Europeans lay on the American beaches, why wouldn't Americans lay on the European beaches? However I think I can guess part of the answer. In Europe it is more common to have a passport than it is in the USA. In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

Playa de las Americas is named as such, because in the old times it was there where ships picked up inhabitants of the island that wanted to settle in America.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

By the way, there are quite some Europeans that fly out to the Caribbean simply to lay on the beach as well. Why wouldn't it work the other way around? If Europeans lay on the American beaches, why wouldn't Americans lay on the European beaches? However I think I can guess part of the answer. In Europe it is more common to have a passport than it is in the USA. In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

Because if your object is to lay on a beach the beaches in the Caribbean are better than anything in Europe? Not to mention that here on the West Coast, Hawaii and French Polynesia are actually closer than Europe.

seahawk wrote:

Playa de las Americas is named as such, because in the old times it was there where ships picked up inhabitants of the island that wanted to settle in America.

I thought it was because that is where Columbus sailed from when he went and discovered America. The little marina in Costa Adeje is where he last set foot on the old land. It is now completely surrounded by hotels for tourists who just want to lay on the beach. Most of them don't even know that little marina was once a very important harbor. The big harbor in Los Christianos is much newer.

Maybe the Azores and the Canaries are just uncompetitive with respect to travel time and price? In 4-5 hours you can be in say Aruba. The Azores or the Canaries require a whole day of travel, in each direction.
Also, are there any All-In resorts in the Azores and the Canaries? Because that's what my children-having colleagues would prefer. Being a "package destination" also helps.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

By the way, there are quite some Europeans that fly out to the Caribbean simply to lay on the beach as well. Why wouldn't it work the other way around? If Europeans lay on the American beaches, why wouldn't Americans lay on the European beaches? However I think I can guess part of the answer. In Europe it is more common to have a passport than it is in the USA. In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not you too?
Passport holding is not part of any beach/island answer at all! Yes, higher % of EU citizens acquire passports than do US citizens, and yes, its because they need them more readily. But US citizens need one to merely step across the border into Canada or Mexico, and so all that are inclined to, do. There's simply no significant number of US citizens who can afford to travel and are inclined to that are stopping because of a passport.

US citizens flood the Caribbean, passports in hand. Very few are going to Europeans beach/islands, because EU beaches are inferior for sun, sand, water temperature, snorkel/scuba, sailing, fishing, value for money, on and on. Ask any of the hordes of Europeans (as you agree there are) in the Caribbean and they'll likely say the same.

Can you imagine many Europeans visiting a California winery? **why would they** ?(but doesn't mean they won't visit California at large)

Europe is for sightseeing, history, culture, romance, "heritage" - not beaches! Obviously, I'm just boiling down a simplistic statement, but c'mon - it isn't like there's ever been any real shortage of US tourists to Europe for the last 50 years, no?

FlyHappy wrote:

Forgive this massive post. Feel flattered that you have written enough worthwhile things I feel compelled to respond to

guyanam wrote:

Norwegian offers by far the cheapest airfares from the USA to the French Antilles. They can only support this during the winter when they run 8x weekly.

Bingo. But Norwegian has no US feed at all, so if you don't live in BWI or JFK territory , the tourist areas of the French Antilles are economically disadvantaged.

guyanam wrote:

Aside from that AA rusn 1x nonstop from MIA. AF flies a milk run service from MIA 5x stopping in PAP and continuing on to FDF.

yeeeeeeahhhh.... lets talk about that; for much of the US, those AA flights are either $700 - $800 1 or 2 stop flights, AND only if you can fly on a Saturday or the AF flights are 3 stop ordeals spanning up to 29hours of clock time (and may cost you $1000+) . Basically if you aren't originating in MIA, this is not an appealing option. The travel time from Europe might be less!

guyanam wrote:

Based on this we can infer that neither PTP nor FDF are popular Caribbean destinations for US tourists. And it isnt because they dont have passports. Compare service to nearby ANU, UVF or even SKB.

Thank you for having a level head about the passport thing.
But chicken and egg on the "popular for US tourists" part. Gotta be easier and cheaper for US originating tourists to get to those islands, and for that to happen, someone must promote as destinations; can't expect the airlines to do that job.

guyanam wrote:

It appears that when an American wants from a resort differs from what Europeans want. Dont bring up notions of spolied prima donnas wanting all inclusive resorts because these are most favored by Euro and Canadians arriving on comprehensive tour packages.

I am not sure that you can draw that conclusion about differences in resort desires about Americans and Europeans. I repeatedly see the exact same resorts and hotels in this region that cater simultaneously (or seasonally) to Germans, Brits, Swedes, Canadians, Argentines, Russians, and USAicans. For real. that alone indicates to me that there are large swathes of tourist/travelers from all those very different places whom are willing to pay for the same kind of vacation experience. I'd suggest that its more about the presence, or lack therof of "vacation bundlers". In EU/Canada/Russia, charter flights are must more common and so all that is left is to sell the all-inclusive resort (maybe only a choice of one!) part to 150 - 300 people and fill the flight. The US tourist is virtually always going to be on a scheduled mainline flight.... so even though they may buy as a "bundle" also, the backend arrangement is far, far different.

guyanam wrote:

Americans from the east coast also travel in the summer. In fact Jamaica sees limited seasonal variation from these markets. The winter focused US travel is that from New England and the Midwest. Summer is the peak for those from the southern states, which are now an increasing source of tourists.

Very true, though don't ignore the US West coast, which will also heavily travel in summer and Christmas time to Hawaii, Pacific Mexico and Europe!

guyanam wrote:

What can be said with credibility is that, with the large numbers of domestic vacation spots Americans don't like to travel long distances if they can avoid it. Jamaica and the Bahamas do well because they are quite close.

only if by "quite close" you mean the SE quadrant of the US, containing perhaps 1/3 of the US population
I get what you are saying is that Americans have more vacation spots available, domestically, than any single European country - but, the long distance thing isn't really true. The distance from Milwaukee to Montego Bay, Jamaica is greater than that of from Munich to Cairo. Culturally, which one is further, you tell me

guyanam wrote:

Americans don't do the "annual vacation trip" They prefer several short trips sprinkled throughout the year.

ehhhhh.......... I'm gonna call you out on this one. Kind of.
An extremely high % of Americans are probably limited to 1 or 0 long distance vacations per year. There's a smallish minority (10% or less, is my guess) that have the time and money to fly away (or equivalent) more than once per year. Having said that, its important to draw a line somewhere, and perhaps here is where the US vs European difference is most obvious.

Large numbers of Americans take weekend/long weekends to "go to the lake/cabin/beach/mountains/campground", this is true. If you count automobile trips of a few hours that span a weekend, and total 3 or 4 days, then yes - Americans take "several short trips" per year. to me, that is not a vacation - that is merely a "leisure weekend", and shouldn't be confused with vacations that involve air travel, regardless of distance.

FlyHappy wrote:

North Atlantic islands are niche destination, and airlines (at least US based) don't do niche that well; they do mass-market.

guyanam wrote:

US based carriers do niche. What they don't do is speculative highly seasonal relatively long distance travel.

isn't that pretty much a definition of "niche" in the aviation context?
if not - tell me what niche destination are served by US carriers for leisure purposes? I am curious. I suppose you will cite small ski resorts, perhaps? If so, those are ludicrous high yielding routes that often have little, if any scheduled competition and sometimes feature things like private airfields for the very well healed.

guyanam wrote:

These islands aren't even promoted in the USA. It is only the most travel focused who have even heard of these places as destinations for leisure travel.

They aren't. Promotion costs money, and who's gonna spend that, if not themselves? Look into the advertising budget the country of Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas and others put into the US to promote and maintain their image as wonderful places to visit and relax. How much do the Azores or Guadeloupe (France?) spend?

guyanam wrote:

I don't think that these islands even want US tourism as their hotels are designed for the Euro traveler and their offerings based on the needs of Euro tour operators.

I agree. But its unlikely that the hotels are designed any differently. Hotels the world over equally satisfy tourists, be they from Nice, Brighton, Kyoto or Austin. Maybe its simply because the EU provides all the tourist flow that is desired?

guyanam wrote:

Its the same reason why US carriers don't fly to the Greek Islands.

No! No! No!
The Greek islands, individually, are tiny, tiny destinations (aviation wise) for US tourists! Thats like asking why Aegean Airlines doesn't fly to San Antonio or Nashville. Really? But that doesn't mean there aren't numbers of US tourists to Greece - there are, always have been. Simply put - the long haul economics just do not work. The US3 have not gotten to be among the most profitable operators globally by being idiots. US tourists want to go visit the Greek Islands? Sure - we'll take you to LHR, AMS, CDG, FCO, ATH, and our partners will take you from there. Its the sound business choice. the US3 literally flying into Greek Island airports is a ridiculous idea, and the lack of those routes say absolutely nothing about the level of US tourism interest to those locations.... nothing at all.

It could be argued that UA's upcoming SFO-PPT is a niche leisure market though it will be timed for connections from UA's CDG-SFO flight.
77H

PatrickZ80 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The Canary Islands are the European Florida. Mostly a tourist destination with price sensitive customers. And while beautiful (especially La Palma) the mainland might still be more interesting for Americans wanting to explore Europe, while the distance is too wide to fly there to simply lay on the beach.

That doesn't explain the name of the main tourist town on Tenerife "Playa de las Americas" which literally means "Beach of the Americans". I know Playa del Ingles (Beach of the English) on Gran Canaria is called like that because it was the favourite place to go by foreigners who visited the island, and to the natives in Gran Canaria every foreigner was English even if in reality they were German, Scandinavian, Dutch, Irish, whatever. So in Gran Canaria it makes sense. But how come the beach in Tenerife was named Beach of the Americans when Tenerife isn't frequently visited by Americans at all?

By the way, there are quite some Europeans that fly out to the Caribbean simply to lay on the beach as well. Why wouldn't it work the other way around? If Europeans lay on the American beaches, why wouldn't Americans lay on the European beaches? However I think I can guess part of the answer. In Europe it is more common to have a passport than it is in the USA. In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

You can easily get on flights in Europe, and not only domestic ones but all within the Schengen area (or within and between Great Britain and Ireland) without a passport. You need a National ID-card (in some cases, as within and between the countries of the Nordic passport union (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), you only need any photo ID). BRA in Sweden don't ask you for an ID at all.

The difference between the US and Europe is the length of vacations. As far as I know, all EU countries have a minimum of 5 weeks annually, by law.

Dieuwer wrote:

Maybe the Azores and the Canaries are just uncompetitive with respect to travel time and price? In 4-5 hours you can be in say Aruba. The Azores or the Canaries require a whole day of travel, in each direction.
Also, are there any All-In resorts in the Azores and the Canaries? Because that's what my children-having colleagues would prefer. Being a "package destination" also helps.

Plenty of all-inclusive resorts in the Canaries.

77H wrote:

It could be argued that UA's upcoming SFO-PPT is a niche leisure market though it will be timed for connections from UA's CDG-SFO flight.
77H

No argument required. By definition, you are right, PPT is a niche market.
But its a long established one; a destination with high name recognition and historical lore, its romance brought to American popular consciousness by the 1958 production of "South Pacific".

Tahiti, and French Polynesia at large have long served as aspirational travel goals.
Niche, yes. But famous and high fare commanding - quite the opposite of the eastern Atlantic isles.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

[ In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

No, you don't need a passport inside the Schengen zone in Europe, an ID card complying with Schengen standards is enough. If I take a 6h flight Helsinki-Canary Islands the ID works just fine but I do need a passport to non-Schengen countries like UK, Cyprus or Bulgaria.

Normally, flying between the Nordic countries or domestically in Finland is a step easier. A driver’s licence or picture social security card also works, seldom even asked though. Passengers under 16 years travelling inside the "Nordic Zone" with their parents are not required to have an ID card of their own. But of course, a passport works everywhere.

FlyHappy wrote:

Look at Bermuda. Its a former British colonial. Its tourism is dominated by US48, (despite not being a big tourist place in general - high cost, colder water, different vibe) in the same way as the Caribbean.

I'm sure you didn't mean it but so much is false in this statement. Still a british terrority, approximately a quarter million (air arriving) visitors yearly (approx 700,000 total), water gets insane warm May-November (been as warm as 88F/31C, however 86/30 is more typical), vibe (and cultures) similar to our family to the south with obvious differences as you'd expect, however you don't and won't see impoverished areas in Bermuda. Everything is colourful and bright. Come take a trip and see for yourself

MalevTU134 wrote:

The difference between the US and Europe is the length of vacations. As far as I know, all EU countries have a minimum of 5 weeks annually, by law.

I suspect this is the biggest reason there is very little appetite for US- EU beach resorts as opposed to EU - Caribbean. If only get limited vacation leave you don't want to lose a whole day each way in transit.

As a sidenote the PA 747 involved in the Tenerife airport disaster was operating a JFK-LPA charter. So there has been a (very small) market for over 40 years now.

txkf2010 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Look at Bermuda. Its a former British colonial. Its tourism is dominated by US48, (despite not being a big tourist place in general - high cost, colder water, different vibe) in the same way as the Caribbean.

I'm sure you didn't mean it but so much is false in this statement. Still a british terrority, approximately a quarter million (air arriving) visitors yearly (approx 700,000 total), water gets insane warm May-November (been as warm as 88F/31C, however 86/30 is more typical), vibe (and cultures) similar to our family to the south with obvious differences as you'd expect, however you don't and won't see impoverished areas in Bermuda. Everything is colourful and bright. Come take a trip and see for yourself

somehow I think you've perceived a slight. None meant.

The water is colder than that of the Caribbean (again, relative to peak wintertime vacationing), cost is higher (as one should expect of a place with a higher standard of living, just as is the case of the Bahamas) , the cultural "vibe" is different ..... what is false about any of this?
I'll mea culpa on use of "former British Colonial" - its self-governing, and I referenced it to convey that it still has notable ties (obviously does as a territory).

mikejepp wrote:

cha747 wrote:

Aren't those destinations a bit like Hawaii - all vacation and no/little business? I can't imagine a large business demand hence I can't imagine airlines scrambling to serve these routes. Follow the money....

As far as I know, yes.... but seeing as how they are closer to the eastern US than Hawaii is.... you'd think the business case could be made for at least 1 flight... compared with the dozens daily to Hawaii.

Except an American Citizen doesn't need a passport to visit Hawaii. Going the Canaries or Azores would require one.

FlyHappy wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

there are very few Caribbean islands where you need a US passport.

seriously, what are you talking about?
the only places in the Caribbean where a passport isn't required are the US territories of Puerto Rico and USVI.

All of those many other sovereign nation islands - Bahamas, DR, Jamaica, on and on and on.... absolutely require a passport. I hope you are not thinking that those countries may let you in (which they might) - but re-entering the US sans passport will present a *major* problem.

passports are being carried by the millions of US tourists who visit the islands, this is a fact.

I believe he may be confusing it with cruising. You don't NEED a passport to get on a cruise ship and sail to the Bahamas. I know this from experience. I haven't gotten around to renewing my passport since it expired a few years back and I use my birth certificate and CDL (Driver's License) to get into the Bahamas. And that allowed me on and off the ship in Freeport, & Nassau. Bahamian Police didn't even bat an eye to me using my Birth Certificate. I can only attest to the Bahamas though.. I haven't been to any other Caribbean country since my passport expired. You do however, need your passport to board a flight. And that is the actual passport book. The passport card is not valid for International flights.

FlyHappy wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

In Europe it is more common to have a passport than it is in the USA. In the USA you can get on a domestic flight without a passport, in Europe you can't. You need a passport for every flight no matter where you're going. That's the reason far more Europeans got a passport than Americans do.

But US citizens need one to merely step across the border into Canada or Mexico, and so all that are inclined to, do. There's simply no significant number of US citizens who can afford to travel and are inclined to that are stopping because of a passport.

Actually no you don't. Mexico possibly but I don't believe so. Canada, a birth certificate & Driver's License will do.. A little more hassle, slightly closer inspection, but more than sufficient to cross from the US into Canada. I used to do it all the time when I drove a truck long haul. I worked for an expedited company in Toledo, OH and frequently made trips into Canada and never carried my passport.

77H wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

77H wrote:

I’d imagine one main reason is that less than 40% of US citizens have passports.The other being that there are plenty of island destinations closer to home or part of the US where passports aren’t needed.

That said, as more MAX and NEO types enter the US3 fleet we very well may see service started in the future.

77H

really? when will this passport idea finally die?
40% of 300 million = 120 million passports. that's more than the population of most developed countries.
only about 9% of Chinese citizens hold passports... so what?

all those island destinations closer to home, as you say - require passports, save Puerto Rico, Hawaii and USVI .

Its funny how decade of complaints about "obnoxious, ugly American tourists" around the globe (mostly tongue in cheek or at least tolerated) can turn into "Americans don't have passports" on a.net .

passports are not a main reason, and not even *any* reason at all.

If passport ownership isn’t a factor might we look at visitor numbers for Americans to Hawaii, PR and the USVI versus other Caribbean Islands and even Mexico ? I’d imagine a good chunk of American passport holders to the Caribbean and Mexico are VFR in nature and not American tourists looking to escape the cold which is what we’d be talking about when it comes to the Atlantic archipelagos..

A poster above remarked how the Canaries, Azores and Madeira are closer to the Eastern Seaboard than Hawaii. Why are there 3 flights a day from NYC to HNL on US carriers but 0 to any of the aforementioned islands that could be reached by lower cost narrow body aircraft?

77H

Just of curiosity, besides the daily HA flight and daily UA flight, who flies the 3rd daily flight from NYC to Honolulu?

dupe

FlyHappy wrote:

But US citizens need one to merely step across the border into Canada or Mexico, and so all that are inclined to, do. There's simply no significant number of US citizens who can afford to travel and are inclined to that are stopping because of a passport.

GatorClark wrote:

Actually no you don't. Mexico possibly but I don't believe so. Canada, a birth certificate & Driver's License will do.. A little more hassle, slightly closer inspection, but more than sufficient to cross from the US into Canada. I used to do it all the time when I drove a truck long haul. I worked for an expedited company in Toledo, OH and frequently made trips into Canada and never carried my passport.

I can't believe I get drawn into these moments of minutae
Commercial traffic, and near border residents (ie, live on one side, work on the other and such) have certain special categories that allow for transit in "abnormal" ways.
But for normal tourism, in all modes of transport - TO RETURN TO THE US, the birth cert + DL thing is no longer good enough. Passport is required.

Even an Alaskan cruise from Seattle- wanna take that little day excursion in the the Yukon? Gotta have your passport....

Your trucking experience is dated. Today, FAST card is required, and you'll note that the preferred documentation when applying for FAST is..... a passport.

EvanWSFO wrote:

RTW00 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

To where? Africa? There are very few US flights to the continent. If there was more profit, they could be flying nonstop already. Even African airlines cannot be profitable. I would say most all flights are low yield, with JNB being an exception but even then not sure.

For many southern Europen destinations eg. LIS, MAD and also to FCO and northern African cities it is better to connect through PDL than KEF from the eastern US. So if the right airline proposes a connection route (or even WOW) through PDL for these destinations, it will be a success.

I still don't see the need. The cities you listed have flights to cities on both continents in the western hemisphere. The only scenario that a hub in Gran Canaria would be attractive is to offer destinations with no TATL coverage. That in itself is a question because there's probably a reason why they don't already have service.

Well, if that is the case WOW wouldn't have offered one-stop service to Europen destinations such as MXP, AMS, FRA etc from JFK since there are multiple non-stop flights.

However, WOW is providing low-cost one-stop flights for the budget travelers (and hopefully making good profits) and competing with the non-stop service to Europe. Same could be done to several southern Europen cities (eg. AGP), as well as some northern Africa (eg. CMN) with connecting through PDL. This could be an alternate to KEF for a low cost connecting hub (both are almost the same distance from JFK).

HELyes wrote:

No, you don't need a passport inside the Schengen zone

...which covers most of Europe, 26 countries, both EU and non-EU states. Map: https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/scheng ... ries-list/

Eindhoven wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Playa de las Americas is named as such, because in the old times it was there where ships picked up inhabitants of the island that wanted to settle in America.

I thought it was because that is where Columbus sailed from when he went and discovered America. The little marina in Costa Adeje is where he last set foot on the old land. It is now completely surrounded by hotels for tourists who just want to lay on the beach. Most of them don't even know that little marina was once a very important harbor. The big harbor in Los Christianos is much newer.

No, on his first voyage he stopped first at Gran Canaria and then sailed from San Sebastian de la Gomera.

I concur with everyone saying that US tourist traffic tends to go to the Caribbean.

Other than that, the reason for Cape Verde and the Azores being best served by PVD/BOS is easy to explain.



It isn't tourism that supports these flights.

EvanWSFO wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Someone should open a low cost hub in Gran Canaria for Europe _ South America traffic . Turn it into the KEF of the South

To where? Africa? There are very few US flights to the continent. If there was more profit, they could be flying nonstop already. Even African airlines cannot be profitable. I would say most all flights are low yield, with JNB being an exception but even then not sure.

Africa? Learn your books man

dampfnudel wrote:

77H wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

really? when will this passport idea finally die?
40% of 300 million = 120 million passports. that's more than the population of most developed countries.
only about 9% of Chinese citizens hold passports... so what?

all those island destinations closer to home, as you say - require passports, save Puerto Rico, Hawaii and USVI .

Its funny how decade of complaints about "obnoxious, ugly American tourists" around the globe (mostly tongue in cheek or at least tolerated) can turn into "Americans don't have passports" on a.net .

passports are not a main reason, and not even *any* reason at all.

If passport ownership isn’t a factor might we look at visitor numbers for Americans to Hawaii, PR and the USVI versus other Caribbean Islands and even Mexico ? I’d imagine a good chunk of American passport holders to the Caribbean and Mexico are VFR in nature and not American tourists looking to escape the cold which is what we’d be talking about when it comes to the Atlantic archipelagos..

A poster above remarked how the Canaries, Azores and Madeira are closer to the Eastern Seaboard than Hawaii. Why are there 3 flights a day from NYC to HNL on US carriers but 0 to any of the aforementioned islands that could be reached by lower cost narrow body aircraft?

77H

Just of curiosity, besides the daily HA flight and daily UA flight, who flies the 3rd daily flight from NYC to Honolulu?

DL. Though if I’m being honest, it might be seasonal. I remember seeing a route announcement about it but didn’t dig too deep into.

77H

spacecadet wrote:

77H wrote:

The other being that there are plenty of island destinations closer to home or part of the US where passports aren’t needed.

I really think that this is actually the main point. I've never been to the Canary islands but I probably just wouldn't even consider it when we have the Caribbean islands within just a few hours of much of the US, and there are very few Caribbean islands where you need a US passport. I'm not sure going to the Canary islands would be different enough for most Americans to bother, or pay the extra cost for the longer flight.

Not to mention the US itself has similar destinations that you can even drive to. Key West, for example (or any of the keys, really). I think this is something that a lot of Europeans don't understand about the US and why so many Americans don't have passports. If your goal is to just go from someplace cold to someplace warm during winter, you don't need to travel internationally at all as you would if you live in, say, Switzerland. You really only need a passport if you specifically want to go to another country to experience a different culture, but that's not why a lot of people travel. A lot of people just want a nice beach.

From the west coast, it's obviously even further to the Canary islands. I think people in the west more often go to Hawaii than the Caribbean, while it's the reverse for people in the east.

There are few Caribbean Islands where Americans don't need a passport. Also how do you explain all those americans going to Mexico with passports. After all most of us don't bother with them. Oh yeah you need a passport if you leave the US to Mexico and want to come back into the US.

Kadish wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Someone should open a low cost hub in Gran Canaria for Europe _ South America traffic . Turn it into the KEF of the South

To where? Africa? There are very few US flights to the continent. If there was more profit, they could be flying nonstop already. Even African airlines cannot be profitable. I would say most all flights are low yield, with JNB being an exception but even then not sure.

Africa? Learn your books man

No he means South America. Look at a map of Europe & south America. Even better SID in Cape Verde is closer to half way from MAD or LIS to REC.
LIS-REC you fly over SID. LIS-SID 1506nm & SID-REC 1647nm. SID-GIG 2647nm. All are within A320neo/A321neo range. Camp Verde would be a nice KEF with routes to CPT & maybe HLE with A319?.

cledaybuck wrote:

Maybe I am missing something, but looking at the average air and water temperatures for Tenerife, it looks way too cold to be a year round beach destination.

The Canary Islands are one of the few places in Europe where year-round sun is guaranteed. Certainly in the UK at least it's marketed as a good winter sun destination and is somewhere I'd look to go to if I wanted warm weather without flying long-haul.

Other than that, people have to travel further afield for winter sun such as the Caribbean, although Egypt was popular with British tourists before the UK government banned UK airlines from flying to Sharm-el-Sheikh after the terrorist crash a few years ago.

MalevTU134 wrote:

The difference between the US and Europe is the length of vacations. As far as I know, all EU countries have a minimum of 5 weeks annually, by law.

.

I can't speak for other European nations, but in the UK the legal requirement is 28 days paid holiday per annum for full-time workers (different for part-time or irregular hour workers). It's up to employers whether public holidays (8 days in England) are included in this figure or not, but some employers are more generous and offer above the legal requirement.

Just a technicality, but the Canary islands are firmly on the African plate, and are a part of Africa, not Europe, although a part of a European country.

Also americans who think they don't need a passport to the non-us Caribbean are probably just old. I don't think passport requirements were nearly as stringent prior to 9/11/01, I never had a passport until 2012, but I definitely had been to the BVI and Canada several times prior to that.

Boeing74741R wrote:

I can't speak for other European nations, but in the UK the legal requirement is 28 days paid holiday per annum for full-time workers (different for part-time or irregular hour workers). It's up to employers whether public holidays (8 days in England) are included in this figure or not, but some employers are more generous and offer above the legal requirement.

The Finnish system is rather complex, details ruled by the collective agreements, but typically you get 5 weeks after a year in service, a 50% bonus is added to your holiday salary (the Finnish version of the Italian 13th month's salary). The public holidays (10 in 2018) not included. Usually a longer career gives you more paid holidays, my contract gives 6 weeks + 3 days after 15y of service.