While unconfirmed, I’ve heard from multiple people today that AA is filing a request to end CLT-HAV and transfer the rights to MIA. Load factors have consistently been less than 60%.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did, but if any other carrier speaks up and requests the frequencies, it'll have to go through a proceeding just like the returned F9, NK, and AS frequencies. We'll see if B6, WN, or DL has an interest in throwing more cash on the bonfire.

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... yptr=yahoo


Not a rumor. Suggest we have the title of the thread changed.

Shocking a cuba service that isn't working out and meeting the airlines hopes? This is as shocking as a HND flight that isn't working.

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?).

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

Good, it does horrible as is.

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 Houston - IAH. United has done fine on the route and expanded it, basically pulling connections from everywhere west of the Mississippi (along with a small, but wealth local demand).

But I concur, Florida, Jersey/NYC and Houston serving everything west is likely all. Maybe an ATL for DL. Nothing more for now.

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.

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.

I would think there are many more connecting opportunities, at least for just one connection, through DFW, particularly from cities further west that don't have non-stop MIA flights. Now whether that would make a difference is another matter. As has been noted, the logical Cuba routes are to south Florida, one or two major hubs and maybe New York.

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

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

Took this flight last month, and it was around 70% full. Although I'll admit the fares were ridiculously cheap less than a week in advance.

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

AA doesn't have a monopoly on MIA-HAV. DL also flies the route and I suspect would ask for the right to add more. As would WN and B6 out of FLL I suspect.

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.

And official with DOT.

AA filed request to remove gateway restriction to allow it the flexibility to better respond to market demand.

Carriers says its CLT-HAV service averaged 55% LF the first half of 2018. Carrier believes since 80% of today's CLT-HAV loads has been connection flow, the carrier can serve this same demand via MIA while also catering to much larger local demand out of South Florida.

OST-2016-0021

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)

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.)

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.)

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.

I'm booked YYZ-HAV with DL in January. They just down-gauged from A319 to CRJ-900 for the ATL-HAV portion. The Air Canada option nonstop was awful flight times - arriving late at night, leaving o-dark-early and then the pricing was not competitive. (AC uses these flights to connect Cubans to Europe apparently.) I hope DL does not cancel this one as that would leave us without good options. And, yes, we booked AirBnB without any issues.

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.

Oh true I forgot about all of this. I think he actually said it was a "photo project" as a hobby or something like that.

Either way, I don't see why AA needs CLT-HAV when MIA-HAV is likely better for O&D anyway.

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)

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.

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)

The rush was due to easing of restrictions. And then political alignments changed. (EDIT - this is a statement based on the facts, not a political argument on who is right)

While airlines definitely overextended and over anticipated demand, the thought was that restrictions would continue to ease; something that just didnt end up happening.

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

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.

Exactly. At IAH, for example, it is fairly simple, as small kiosk is always set up near E1 (the normal Havana gate) and folks do the paperwork. Is quick and fairly painless.

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.)

And there you have the answer. Firstly he is in a union so his travel is not only compliant, but he has the assurance that it is compliant so can do this stress free. The second is traveling in a group the inconveniences of travel to Cuba (lack of access to US ATMs, credit cards) is less of an issue. The third is that he has ready information and the resources to deal with the challenges of travel to Cuba, such as its inefficient tourism related infrastructure (inadequate numbers of taxis or car rentals).

Unless an American has an ideological need to visit Cuba most will opt for other islands. As is not everyone is an "Airbnb" person, which is what is available to US travelers given that the resorts are booked by Euro and Canadian (and maybe Latin American) tour operators.

I can also guess that this man's political ideology is probably extreme left so is impressed with the Castro related propaganda so cares not one bit that he travels to Cuba with privileges that the average Cuban professional living there lacks.

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

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 . . .

What was AA's reasoning for never requesting JFK/DFW-HAV?

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.

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 . . .

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.

TPA-Cuba is profitable -- otherwise we wouldn't see charter carriers put up the cash for six weekly regularly scheduled charters to HAV, HOG, SNU, on top of WN's growing service.

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.

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.

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

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

IAH was a once-weekly flight. Apples to apples...

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.

Non VFR travel to Cuba was increasing before the Trump restrictions. If these are reduced I expect the NY area to do well, at least to HAV. The secondary cities will be more of a challenge as the VFR market doesn't seem to be there. I know of several people who are going on Cuba cruises. Many would want to return as a stay over but the hassles of lack of ATM and card access is a real issue. Who wants to run around with tons of cash!

DOT has denied AA's request for flexibility in removing gateway restrictions on Cuba routes which would allow AA to move the CLT service to MIA.

DOT states allowing airlines to select their own gateways would go against years of established procedure and would defeat the departments selection process in evaluating competing proposals from airlines and not serve the public interest..

Should AA indeed desire to move its flights, it can do so via established procedure whereby the department will evaluate that request as a fresh record and in light of the circumstances at such time and also allow for others to submit comments.

Order 2018-11-5

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.

If AA I understood it so well, why did they request and fly CLT?

Outside of Florida-Cuba, it’s been a huge bust.

Guess we might have another mini route case if other airlines seek to utilize this AA authority instead.

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.

No surprise, as suggested by the DOT, AA has now filed for authority to transfer its CLT-HAV service to another gateway and offer additional MIA-HAV service.
AA says despite nearly two years of operations CLT-HAV has continued to experience subpar performance in contrast to MIA-HAV which enjoys robust demand. AA believes moving the authority is in the public interest and would better serve market demand.

OST-2016-0021

DOT has decided to institute a proceeding to decide what to do with AA's CLT-HAV authority.

DOT will seek to determine if its in public interest to have AA move the daily authority to Miami or whether if the public interest instead calls for an alternative use of these frequencies.

Procedural Timeline:
Petitions for Reconsideration: December 12, 2018
Answers to Petitions: December 14, 2018
Applications/Supplements/Amendments: December 20, 2018
Answers: January 7, 2019
Replies: January 14, 2019

OST-2016-0021

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.

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.

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?

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.

I think restrictions should be lifted, but a cheap beach vacation is not a “basic right” - that’s getting carried away.

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?

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. Only two countries ban personal travel? The USA and North Korea?? I think you should try again.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I read his statement; travel is the right, and I have the right to choose a cheap beach vacation or a week in the Ritz. Travel is my choice, not the government's.

And, may I ask, which school? I am an SMU Law alum.