Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
ericm2031 wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
And probably Houston too. UA has seen success there and increased frequency since initial launch.
I'm kind of surprised AA hasn't tried DFW with the endless connecting opportunities
MIflyer12 wrote:ericm2031 wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
And probably Houston too. UA has seen success there and increased frequency since initial launch.
I'm kind of surprised AA hasn't tried DFW with the endless connecting opportunities
Don't most of the origins xxx-DFW-HAV already have connectivity via MIA, at least for the origin cities of decent numbers of people traveling to Cuba? The (alleged) failure of the CLT route shows connectivity isn't enough.
wnflyguy wrote:I expect you will see everyone else advocating this Slot should be put up for re-Allocation. Saying AA has the monopoly on the MIA-HAV market.
Flyguy
wnflyguy wrote:I expect you will see everyone else advocating this Slot should be put up for re-Allocation. Saying AA has the monopoly on the MIA-HAV market.
Flyguy
axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
N649DL wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
B727skyguy wrote:N649DL wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
From the US State Department website:
Tourist travel to Cuba remains prohibited. You must obtain a license from the Department of Treasury or your travel must fall into one of 12 categories of authorized travel.
(source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... /Cuba.html)
N649DL wrote:B727skyguy wrote:N649DL wrote:
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
From the US State Department website:
Tourist travel to Cuba remains prohibited. You must obtain a license from the Department of Treasury or your travel must fall into one of 12 categories of authorized travel.
(source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... /Cuba.html)
Interesting as a buddy of mine has been down there several times and usually does AirBNB. How does he get down there? (Granted, he's part of a large union.)
Brickell305 wrote:N649DL wrote:B727skyguy wrote:Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
From the US State Department website:
Tourist travel to Cuba remains prohibited. You must obtain a license from the Department of Treasury or your travel must fall into one of 12 categories of authorized travel.
(source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... /Cuba.html)
Interesting as a buddy of mine has been down there several times and usually does AirBNB. How does he get down there? (Granted, he's part of a large union.)
While tourist travel is prohibited in theory, in practice the rule is very weakly enforced. As such, many people do visit as tourists regardless and most use the "people to people" category for their trips. The larger hindrances to vacation travel to Cuba are:
1. The availability of accommodation (for those who are not familiar with AirBnB
2. The fact that American debit/credit cards don't work in Cuba
3. The 10% fee for converting USD to CUC
4. The cost of a Cuban visa
However, with all of that said if AA is able to move the frequency to Miami, it'll be the highest frequency of any of AA's MIA-Caribbean (and likely international generally) routes. Not bad for a route for which many have been predicting the demise.
B727skyguy wrote:N649DL wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
From the US State Department website:
Tourist travel to Cuba remains prohibited. You must obtain a license from the Department of Treasury or your travel must fall into one of 12 categories of authorized travel.
(source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... /Cuba.html)
B727skyguy wrote:N649DL wrote:axiom wrote:I would not be surprised to see US-HAV shrink to HAV-MIA/FLL/TPA, and maybe JFK or EWR, plus one other legacy hub (ATL?).
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
From the US State Department website:
Tourist travel to Cuba remains prohibited. You must obtain a license from the Department of Treasury or your travel must fall into one of 12 categories of authorized travel.
(source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... /Cuba.html)
gwrudolph wrote:wnflyguy wrote:I expect you will see everyone else advocating this Slot should be put up for re-Allocation. Saying AA has the monopoly on the MIA-HAV market.
Flyguy
Ya, but who is going to want it at this point. Other than AA in MIA, no other carrier seems to need extra capacity on a route that works, and nothing else other than Florida, New York, Atlanta, and Houston seem to work
MAH4546 wrote:
In theory only. In practice Americans are allowed to freely travel to and from Cuba. You don’t even get your visa in advance, you do it at the airport.
N649DL wrote:
Interesting as a buddy of mine has been down there several times and usually does AirBNB. How does he get down there? (Granted, he's part of a large union.)
wnflyguy wrote:gwrudolph wrote:wnflyguy wrote:I expect you will see everyone else advocating this Slot should be put up for re-Allocation. Saying AA has the monopoly on the MIA-HAV market.
Flyguy
Ya, but who is going to want it at this point. Other than AA in MIA, no other carrier seems to need extra capacity on a route that works, and nothing else other than Florida, New York, Atlanta, and Houston seem to work
I see WN,DL,B6 and UA asking for the slot vs letting AA adding an additional 6th daily slot to MIA.
WN will probably request using the slot increase HAV-TPA to 2 daily vs just on newly approved Saturday slot.
DL will probably argue it needs an extra HAV-MIA against AA 5 daily flights.
B6 will probably ask to add a daily MCO-HAV.
UA will probably ask to increase HOU-HAV with a 2nd daily flight.
I will be surprised if AA allowed to move it to MIA.
Flyguy
Byrdluvs747 wrote:What was AA's reasoning for never requesting JFK/DFW-HAV?
gwrudolph wrote:wnflyguy wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
Ya, but who is going to want it at this point. Other than AA in MIA, no other carrier seems to need extra capacity on a route that works, and nothing else other than Florida, New York, Atlanta, and Houston seem to work
I see WN,DL,B6 and UA asking for the slot vs letting AA adding an additional 6th daily slot to MIA.
WN will probably request using the slot increase HAV-TPA to 2 daily vs just on newly approved Saturday slot.
DL will probably argue it needs an extra HAV-MIA against AA 5 daily flights.
B6 will probably ask to add a daily MCO-HAV.
UA will probably ask to increase HOU-HAV with a 2nd daily flight.
I will be surprised if AA allowed to move it to MIA.
Flyguy
Maybe on the B6 MCO, but UA, for example, asked for permission to use a United Express partner on and downgraded to an e jet on IAH-HAV. Why would they want a second frequency. Just use a 737 instead. I’ll bet DL isn’t setting the world on fire with MIA and wouldn’t be interested in another MIA frequency
The whole thing was way overblown. Until it truly opens up . . .
tphuang wrote:gwrudolph wrote:wnflyguy wrote:
I see WN,DL,B6 and UA asking for the slot vs letting AA adding an additional 6th daily slot to MIA.
WN will probably request using the slot increase HAV-TPA to 2 daily vs just on newly approved Saturday slot.
DL will probably argue it needs an extra HAV-MIA against AA 5 daily flights.
B6 will probably ask to add a daily MCO-HAV.
UA will probably ask to increase HOU-HAV with a 2nd daily flight.
I will be surprised if AA allowed to move it to MIA.
Flyguy
Maybe on the B6 MCO, but UA, for example, asked for permission to use a United Express partner on and downgraded to an e jet on IAH-HAV. Why would they want a second frequency. Just use a 737 instead. I’ll bet DL isn’t setting the world on fire with MIA and wouldn’t be interested in another MIA frequency
The whole thing was way overblown. Until it truly opens up . . .
oh no, B6 is not going to ask for another MCO frequency. That would be ridiculous.
here is LF as I previously posted on cuba, I added all the secondary cities also
Carrier Flights Boarded Seats LF SeatPerFlight
JFKHAV
DL 68 5345 9026 59.22% 132.7
B6 174 14848 26100 56.89% 150
EWRHAV
UA 175 18036 29052 62.08% 166
FLLHAV
WN 360 45832 63000 72.75% 175
B6 329 31337 49300 63.56% 149.8
MIAHAV
AA 720 94700 115200 82.20% 160
DL 180 23924 28536 83.84% 158.5
WL 22 1610 3410 47.21% 155
XP 249 22668 41832 54.19% 168
MCOHAV
B6 179 11974 18300 65.43% 102.2
TPAHAV
WN 180 23391 31500 74.26% 175
IAHHAV
UA 26 3512 4316 81.37% 166
ATLHAV
DL 182 17519 24022 72.93% 132
CLTHAV
AA 164 9733 20992 46.37% 128
FLLHOG
B6 181 12757 18200 70.09% 100.6
MIAHOG
AA 180 25103 28800 87.16% 160
XP 14 1274 2352 54.17% 168
FLLSNU
B6 181 13142 18250 72.01% 100.8
MIASNU
AA 180 26115 28800 90.68% 160
XP 58 6349 9744 65.16% 168
FLLCMW
B6 180 12716 18000 70.64% 100
MIACMW
YX 180 12570 13680 91.89% 76
XP 34 3314 5712 58.02% 168
quite clearly CLTHAV was a disaster. Those B6 FLL flights to secondary Cuban airports have pretty low LF considering they are only 100 seats to fill. Those should cut asap. Outside of AA at MIA, I don't see how anyone else could possibly be making money here. IAHHAV is going to get a huge bump in capacity so that 81% LF will come way down.
joeblow10 wrote:tphuang wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
Maybe on the B6 MCO, but UA, for example, asked for permission to use a United Express partner on and downgraded to an e jet on IAH-HAV. Why would they want a second frequency. Just use a 737 instead. I’ll bet DL isn’t setting the world on fire with MIA and wouldn’t be interested in another MIA frequency
The whole thing was way overblown. Until it truly opens up . . .
oh no, B6 is not going to ask for another MCO frequency. That would be ridiculous.
here is LF as I previously posted on cuba, I added all the secondary cities also
Carrier Flights Boarded Seats LF SeatPerFlight
JFKHAV
DL 68 5345 9026 59.22% 132.7
B6 174 14848 26100 56.89% 150
EWRHAV
UA 175 18036 29052 62.08% 166
FLLHAV
WN 360 45832 63000 72.75% 175
B6 329 31337 49300 63.56% 149.8
MIAHAV
AA 720 94700 115200 82.20% 160
DL 180 23924 28536 83.84% 158.5
WL 22 1610 3410 47.21% 155
XP 249 22668 41832 54.19% 168
MCOHAV
B6 179 11974 18300 65.43% 102.2
TPAHAV
WN 180 23391 31500 74.26% 175
IAHHAV
UA 26 3512 4316 81.37% 166
ATLHAV
DL 182 17519 24022 72.93% 132
CLTHAV
AA 164 9733 20992 46.37% 128
FLLHOG
B6 181 12757 18200 70.09% 100.6
MIAHOG
AA 180 25103 28800 87.16% 160
XP 14 1274 2352 54.17% 168
FLLSNU
B6 181 13142 18250 72.01% 100.8
MIASNU
AA 180 26115 28800 90.68% 160
XP 58 6349 9744 65.16% 168
FLLCMW
B6 180 12716 18000 70.64% 100
MIACMW
YX 180 12570 13680 91.89% 76
XP 34 3314 5712 58.02% 168
quite clearly CLTHAV was a disaster. Those B6 FLL flights to secondary Cuban airports have pretty low LF considering they are only 100 seats to fill. Those should cut asap. Outside of AA at MIA, I don't see how anyone else could possibly be making money here. IAHHAV is going to get a huge bump in capacity so that 81% LF will come way down.
Yowza, that is all around hideous. Outside of MIA and IAH everything else is pretty atrocious in terms of LFs. Even NYC is doing badly.
The very obvious conclusion here is that this market is over saturated. I would be shocked if anybody requests additional slots outside of Florida or UA from IAH
TWFlyGuy wrote:I do wonder what the new "restrictions" did to the market. If anyone knows if as the current administration announced restrictions their became a perceived belief that you can't go suppressing demand. I'm purely curious. There's likely also a sizable portion of people not going for political reason despite an actual desire. Just my thoughts.
ScottB wrote:Byrdluvs747 wrote:What was AA's reasoning for never requesting JFK/DFW-HAV?
Having an understanding of the market for travel to Cuba? It's overwhelmingly concentrated in South Florida, and virtually all U.S. markets with appreciable demand to Cuba are connected to the MIA hub. There's no need to operate empty aircraft overflying their hub, which is why they're ending CLT.
B727skyguy wrote:
Very, very possible. Cuba just isn't ready for prime time yet as a tourist destination. Hotels have large waiting lists since there aren't many of them as is.
Considering that US citizen touristic travel to Cuba is still prohibited, the waiting list for hotels must be for Canadian and European travelers. I've always wondered why there was such a rush to have all these flights from the US to Cuba when US citizens cannot yet travel there as tourists.
Skywatcher wrote:Cuba and the Dominican Republic are visited by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Canadians every year, primarily during our brutal winter months. I've visited a few times as well. They are considered "cheap beach resorts". The package deals include everything (room/food/booze etc.) so most people just hang around the resort and chill for a week. It is hard to understand why people who live in northern states wouldn't want to have the option of doing the same, simple thing for such cheap prices. Why do politics always have to be so contentious and in this case deprive people of basic rights like having a cheap beach vacation somewhere different? If Americans really want to influence what goes on in Cuba I suggest that the best way would be to flood the country with American tourists.
Bobloblaw wrote:1. Politics should matter where you choose to vacation.
2. The argument that economic interaction will bring about political reforms is an argument from 25 years go that time has disproved and hasnt played out in places like China, Turkey and the Gulf countries.
Skywatcher wrote:Cuba and the Dominican Republic are visited by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Canadians every year, primarily during our brutal winter months. I've visited a few times as well. They are considered "cheap beach resorts". The package deals include everything (room/food/booze etc.) so most people just hang around the resort and chill for a week. It is hard to understand why people who live in northern states wouldn't want to have the option of doing the same, simple thing for such cheap prices. Why do politics always have to be so contentious and in this case deprive people of basic rights like having a cheap beach vacation somewhere different? If Americans really want to influence what goes on in Cuba I suggest that the best way would be to flood the country with American tourists.
alfa164 wrote:Bobloblaw wrote:1. Politics should matter where you choose to vacation.
2. The argument that economic interaction will bring about political reforms is an argument from 25 years go that time has disproved and hasnt played out in places like China, Turkey and the Gulf countries.
1. It should be up to Americans to decide whether or not they want to visit Cuba; no small but politically influential voter bloc in Florida should be able to dictate where I can or cannot go;
2. Economic interaction has done a lot more for China, Turkey, and the Gulf States than burying our head in the sand and acting like a pouty child has done for Cuba.
3. Only two countries ban personal travel to specific countries: the USA, and North Korea. That puts us in great company, doesn't it?
jbs2886 wrote:I think restrictions should be lifted, but a cheap beach vacation is not a “basic right” - that’s getting carried away.
Bobloblaw wrote:Turkey is more repressive than ever and China’s human rights record is no better today than it was when they were admitted into the WTO.
Bobloblaw wrote:Only two countries ban personal travel? The USA and North Korea?? I think you should try again.
alfa164 wrote:jbs2886 wrote:I think restrictions should be lifted, but a cheap beach vacation is not a “basic right” - that’s getting carried away.
Freedom of travel, per se, is the basic right. It is not the role of the government to make those choices for us.Bobloblaw wrote:Turkey is more repressive than ever and China’s human rights record is no better today than it was when they were admitted into the WTO.
When they were admitted into the WTO? Are those your goalposts? Then it is fair to say the USA is more repressive as well; there were no travel restrictions on us at that time.Bobloblaw wrote:Only two countries ban personal travel? The USA and North Korea?? I think you should try again.
Please enlighten us, then: which other nations ban personal travel to specific countries?
jbs2886 wrote:Read his statement. He said a cheap beach vacation is a basic right, not travel in general. There is a big difference to that - yes, I’ve been to law school, I know what are rights.