Air Italy announces LAX & SFO

LAXintl · Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:21 pm

MXP - LAX eff April 3, 2019 - 4x weekly

MXP - SFO eff April 10, 2019 - 4x weekly

Air Italy Announces Direct Flights From Milan To Los Angeles And San Francisco For 2019
https://newsroom.aviator.aero/air-italy ... -for-2019/

=

mercure1 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:39 pm

When are they due to receive 787s?

spannacomo · Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:41 pm

Great news thank you

PatrickZ80 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:43 pm

mercure1 wrote:
When are they due to receive 787s?

Planned for may 2019, but they also got the A330-200 in the fleet. Those are scheduled to be replaced in 2019, but it doesn't say which month.

Therefor it might be they start these routes on the A330 which will later be replaced by the 787.

spannacomo · Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:53 pm

mercure1 wrote:
When are they due to receive 787s?

rumours say at the end of 2019 at least one
at least one extra A330 is expected to arrive in first half of 2019

janders · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:03 pm

Cool.

Is Norwegian doing Milan-LA/SF next year? Their 2018 summer flights got canceled as part of the need to trim schedule for the RR engine repairs.

tkoenig95 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:06 pm

Great news for MXP! IG is doing an amazing job of creating northern Italy the port of entry for many tourists and these West Coast destinations will do great for their network.

777-500er · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:11 pm

What does the schedule look like?

FSDan · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:14 pm

777-500er wrote:
What does the schedule look like?

It wasn't published in the article, but the article does mention that the eastbound flights depart a day after the westbound flights. I'm guessing that means the aircraft sit overnight at SFO/LAX and have a significant amount of downtime.

Hopefully these routes will do well - MXP has thus far struggled to maintain service outside of NYC, MIA, and DL's summer only ATL flight.

simpv · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Great! When was the last time SFO had a direct link to Italy? 2001?

Noise · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:15 pm

About time; Milan is the economic hub of Italy. It needs a carrier like Air Italy to develop MXP.

777-500er · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:17 pm

simpv wrote:
Great! When was the last time SFO had a direct link to Italy? 2001?

Alitalia last operated this flight on Sept 30, 2001, AZ 624/625 with a 767-300ER.

spannacomo · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:18 pm

IG 0943 MXP-LAX 13.00-16.50
IG 0944 LAX-MXP 18.50-15.55*

IG 0937 MXP-SFO 13.35-17.10
IG 0938 SFO-MXP 19.10-16.05*

from www.mxpairport.it

777-500er · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:27 pm

spannacomo wrote:
IG 0943 MXP-LAX 13.00-16.50
IG 0944 LAX-MXP 18.50-15.55*

IG 0937 MXP-SFO 13.35-17.10
IG 0938 SFO-MXP 19.10-16.05*

from http://www.mxpairport.it

Thanks. I think these times make sense. Not sure what the article was referring to when they mentioned the outbound flight would be the day after.

LAXintl · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:30 pm

Days of weeks are:

LAX = Mon/Wed/Fri/Sun
SFO = Tue/Wed/Thu/Sat

cedarjet · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:38 pm

Waaaaaay overdue. In San Francisco was there’s even a big Italian high rise hotel just off Union Sq. as well as of course (not so) Little Italy up the hill.

SonaSounds · Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:46 pm

Great new route additions for both LAX & SFO!

FSDan · Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:47 pm

777-500er wrote:
spannacomo wrote:
IG 0943 MXP-LAX 13.00-16.50
IG 0944 LAX-MXP 18.50-15.55*

IG 0937 MXP-SFO 13.35-17.10
IG 0938 SFO-MXP 19.10-16.05*

from http://www.mxpairport.it

Thanks. I think these times make sense. Not sure what the article was referring to when they mentioned the outbound flight would be the day after.

Yeah, whoever wrote the article must have been thinking of the dates the inbound flights arrive in Italy rather than when they depart...

Glad to hear these will be normal turns! Should give the routes a better chance of achieving profitability.

OA940 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:03 pm

Great news! Would really hope to see them succeed in these markets and open up many more.

B747forever · Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:18 pm

What will the next European destination be from LAX?

Most major cities are already connected:

KEF
DUB
LGW/LHR
MAN
OSL
ARN
HEL
CPH
SVO
WAW
CDG
MAD
BCN
FRA
MUC
ZRH
VIE
AMS
FCO
MXP
IST

MAH4546 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:30 pm

cedarjet wrote:
Waaaaaay overdue. In San Francisco was there’s even a big Italian high rise hotel just off Union Sq. as well as of course (not so) Little Italy up the hill.

The SFO-MIL market is tiny.

That's not to say it won't work, the plane will be easy to fill and the market will be easy to stimulate. But this isn't overdue. It's just more excess capacity in two over-served U.S.-Europe markets (and too clarify, just about every market is overserved to Europe these days, from the LA/SF/MIA/BOS to the TPA/DEN/SEA/AUS).

FSDan · Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:43 pm

B747forever wrote:
What will the next European destination be from LAX?

Most major cities are already connected:

KEF
DUB
LGW/LHR
MAN
OSL
ARN
HEL
CPH
SVO
WAW
CDG
MAD
BCN
FRA
MUC
ZRH
VIE
AMS
FCO
MXP
IST

Probably LIS or DUS (TP and EW, respectively). Other outside chances would be BRU or KBP.

JerseyFlyer · Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:24 pm

spannacomo wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
When are they due to receive 787s?

rumours say at the end of 2019 at least one
at least one extra A330 is expected to arrive in first half of 2019

All transferred from QR?

Blerg · Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:30 pm

What happened to their India flights? I know they were postponed but have they started yet?

a350lover · Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:38 pm

janders wrote:
Cool.

Is Norwegian doing Milan-LA/SF next year? Their 2018 summer flights got canceled as part of the need to trim schedule for the RR engine repairs.

Although Norwegian announced plans to serve LAX from MXP just about a year ago, that never became real.

winginit · Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:26 pm

With all these new international adds into LAX I'm betting the TBIT SSCP traffic is going to start looking as bad as the horseshoe. Something has gotta give there.

B747forever · Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:38 pm

FSDan wrote:
B747forever wrote:
What will the next European destination be from LAX?

Most major cities are already connected:

KEF
DUB
LGW/LHR
MAN
OSL
ARN
HEL
CPH
SVO
WAW
CDG
MAD
BCN
FRA
MUC
ZRH
VIE
AMS
FCO
MXP
IST

Probably LIS or DUS (TP and EW, respectively). Other outside chances would be BRU or KBP.

Didnt UIA specially mention LAX as a future destination when acquiring their 777s?

TP seems to be in an expansion mode, so hopefully they will add LAX. However, I believe their plan is to actually launch SFO first.

Both LAX-DUS and LAX-TXL was flown when AB was still around. DUS is probably a stronger market, but would much rather prefer a connection to Berlin. Maybe Norwegian?

smi0006 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:59 pm

Exciting! Glad to see IG expand!! Hope we see further expansion out east towards Asia too.

How’s their euro network looking? Be good to see them in Oneworld too, at least as a connect partner! I’m sure their routes would enjoy feed from AA!

FSDan · Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:04 pm

B747forever wrote:
FSDan wrote:
B747forever wrote:
What will the next European destination be from LAX?

Most major cities are already connected:

KEF
DUB
LGW/LHR
MAN
OSL
ARN
HEL
CPH
SVO
WAW
CDG
MAD
BCN
FRA
MUC
ZRH
VIE
AMS
FCO
MXP
IST

Probably LIS or DUS (TP and EW, respectively). Other outside chances would be BRU or KBP.

Didnt UIA specially mention LAX as a future destination when acquiring their 777s?

I'd expect PS to add KBP-MIA before they add KBP-LAX. However, there aren't too many other U.S. destinations I could see them serving.

B747forever wrote:
TP seems to be in an expansion mode, so hopefully they will add LAX. However, I believe their plan is to actually launch SFO first.

Yep, LIS-SFO should come first. After IAD, ORD, and SFO are all online, LAX seems like the next logical long haul add for TP in the U.S.

georgiabill · Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:17 pm

Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.

ucdtim17 · Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:28 pm

janders wrote:
Cool.

Is Norwegian doing Milan-LA/SF next year? Their 2018 summer flights got canceled as part of the need to trim schedule for the RR engine repairs.

3x weekly FCO-OAK next summer

clrd4t8koff · Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:55 pm

georgiabill wrote:
Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

B752OS · Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:21 am

Regarding SFO, it's interesting that they have year round service to BCN and only seasonal service to MAD.

MAH4546 · Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:08 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
georgiabill wrote:
Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

jasoncrh · Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:15 am

Learn to pluralize man. Just as an s or es. Never an apostrophe. Which makes things possessive, which is different than plural.
Airports are not required to do anything if the sort.

quote="MAH4546"]

clrd4t8koff wrote:
georgiabill wrote:
Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.[/quote]

clrd4t8koff · Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:55 am

MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
georgiabill wrote:
Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

clrd4t8koff · Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:56 am

MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

jasoncrh wrote:
Learn to pluralize man. Just as an s or es. Never an apostrophe. Which makes things possessive, which is different than plural.
Airports are not required to do anything if the sort

MAH4546 · Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:09 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

I wonder if Air Italy’s first choice was BOS, but due to major gate constraints at terminal E there isn’t space for the times they wanted, therefor they went with LAX & SFO split.

BOS will be added and could be sooner than later if WW folds and that slot opens at BOS, though rumor has it that RAM will take it for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... maroc/amp/

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

SonaSounds · Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:31 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

You have that half right. Most airports in the USA are Level 1 airports with no restrictions as they theoretically have adequate room to accommodate flights at all times of day CBP is open. Level 2 airport are facility constrained, but not runway constrained. In the U.S., the Level 2 airports include Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). An airport operator may separately declare an airport as Level 2 based on airport passenger terminal facility or other constraints.

Currently, the four FAA Level 2 airports have a separate process for flights operating at specific airport facilities designated and managed by the local airport operator. In these cases, carriers provide schedules to the FAA and the local airport schedule facilitators. The carrier is responsible for ensuring matching runway and terminal approvals. Additionally, some international passenger terminals are Level 2 at non-FAA Level 2 designated airports and managed at the local airport level. Those airports are currently Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA). Each airport has a slightly different process but must be given terminal approval before operating or CBP will deny landing rights.

There is only one Level 3 airport in the United States which is JFK.

You can find a completely list here: https://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Docum ... -11.6.xlsx

SonaSounds · Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:38 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
Waaaaaay overdue. In San Francisco was there’s even a big Italian high rise hotel just off Union Sq. as well as of course (not so) Little Italy up the hill.

The SFO-MIL market is tiny.

That's not to say it won't work, the plane will be easy to fill and the market will be easy to stimulate. But this isn't overdue. It's just more excess capacity in two over-served U.S.-Europe markets (and too clarify, just about every market is overserved to Europe these days, from the LA/SF/MIA/BOS to the TPA/DEN/SEA/AUS).

Not sure where you are coming up with that data but publicly available T-100 data would show both markets are of considerable size for being unserved.

LAX-MIL 163.2 PDEWs
SFO-MIL 123.7 PDEWs

I would expect Italy to have strong seasonality from both these destinations though....

Source: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=111

The99Percent · Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:47 pm

Blerg wrote:
What happened to their India flights? I know they were postponed but have they started yet?

They're showing up on their website, but I don't see flights beyond March 2019. Was hoping that the new SFO/LAX flights would provide another option for travel to India from US West Coast.

RichardWelling · Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:51 pm

smi0006 wrote:
Exciting! Glad to see IG expand!! Hope we see further expansion out east towards Asia too.

How’s their euro network looking? Be good to see them in Oneworld too, at least as a connect partner! I’m sure their routes would enjoy feed from AA!

I too would love to see the feed happen between AS and IG. Unfortunately AA is not happy witn IG operating into the US due to the fact that QR is a stakeholder within the company.

spannacomo · Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:04 pm

The99Percent wrote:
Blerg wrote:
What happened to their India flights? I know they were postponed but have they started yet?

They're showing up on their website, but I don't see flights beyond March 2019. Was hoping that the new SFO/LAX flights would provide another option for travel to India from US West Coast.

Today first flight MXP-DEL, next week first flight MXP-BOM

jcwr56 · Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:01 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

You have that half right. Most airports in the USA are Level 1 airports with no restrictions as they theoretically have adequate room to accommodate flights at all times of day CBP is open. Level 2 airport are facility constrained, but not runway constrained. In the U.S., the Level 2 airports include Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). An airport operator may separately declare an airport as Level 2 based on airport passenger terminal facility or other constraints.

Currently, the four FAA Level 2 airports have a separate process for flights operating at specific airport facilities designated and managed by the local airport operator. In these cases, carriers provide schedules to the FAA and the local airport schedule facilitators. The carrier is responsible for ensuring matching runway and terminal approvals. Additionally, some international passenger terminals are Level 2 at non-FAA Level 2 designated airports and managed at the local airport level. Those airports are currently Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA). Each airport has a slightly different process but must be given terminal approval before operating or CBP will deny landing rights.

There is only one Level 3 airport in the United States which is JFK.

You can find a completely list here: https://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Docum ... -11.6.xlsx

Technically, any of the level 2's could self declare itself a level 3 based on facilities alone, granted it would have to justify with hard data to the Industry. The coordination between the FAA and each of the 4 are efficient enough where runways become secondary in the facilitation process. EWR is one where runways are still the primary issue and should never have been dropped to level 2 but that's for another topic.

adamh8297 · Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:10 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
Waaaaaay overdue. In San Francisco was there’s even a big Italian high rise hotel just off Union Sq. as well as of course (not so) Little Italy up the hill.

The SFO-MIL market is tiny.

That's not to say it won't work, the plane will be easy to fill and the market will be easy to stimulate. But this isn't overdue. It's just more excess capacity in two over-served U.S.-Europe markets (and too clarify, just about every market is overserved to Europe these days, from the LA/SF/MIA/BOS to the TPA/DEN/SEA/AUS).

Not sure where you are coming up with that data but publicly available T-100 data would show both markets are of considerable size for being unserved.

LAX-MIL 163.2 PDEWs
SFO-MIL 123.7 PDEWs

I would expect Italy to have strong seasonality from both these destinations though....

Source: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=111

What report did you use - I had the understanding T-100 is not a measure of O+D.

clrd4t8koff · Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:51 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:

There are no slots at BOS. Gate space may be constrained, but airport's are required to make room when there are no slots.

There's significantly more demand from Milan to California (LA in particular, not SF) than Milan to Boston.

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

The biggest issue with your replies is the lack of comprehension on your part. Let me help you out...

I say that BOS is facing gate constraints at terminal E and you reply with "BOS isn't slot controlled." Thanks, I never said it was.

I never say anything about there not being room for IG, only that I wonder if maybe the gate times they wanted weren't available and you come back with "as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier." NOBODY said OR suggested there wasn't room only that perhaps it's not for the times they wanted.

I clearly say RUMOR has it that RAM will take the gate times of WW (should they fail) for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July and you come back with "but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous." AGAIN - I SAID RUMOR. That's it, just a rumor. I didn't say RAM took the gate times. I said rumor.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend what you're commenting on? :roll:

MAH4546 · Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:29 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

Did I say there were slots at BOS? No, I did not.

Please provide a link that states airports are required to make room when there isn’t any to be made.

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

The biggest issue with your replies is the lack of comprehension on your part. Let me help you out...

I say that BOS is facing gate constraints at terminal E and you reply with "BOS isn't slot controlled." Thanks, I never said it was.

I never say anything about there not being room for IG, only that I wonder if maybe the gate times they wanted weren't available and you come back with "as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier." NOBODY said OR suggested there wasn't room only that perhaps it's not for the times they wanted.

I clearly say RUMOR has it that RAM will take the gate times of WW (should they fail) for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July and you come back with "but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous." AGAIN - I SAID RUMOR. That's it, just a rumor. I didn't say RAM took the gate times. I said rumor.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend what you're commenting on?

You literally said the word slot dude.

Nothing is stopping Air Italy from announcing Boston if it wants.

sonicruiser · Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:11 am

Good move, they seem to be doing all the right stuff so far. Will be interested to see what comes next, my guess would be BOS or ORD.

B752OS · Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:39 am

sonicruiser wrote:
Good move, they seem to be doing all the right stuff so far. Will be interested to see what comes next, my guess would be BOS or ORD.

BOS and ORD would be logical adds as they build out their US network.

I'd be curious to see what kind of long haul network they'll be able to maintain once they get all 30 of their 788s plus the 2 332s.

clrd4t8koff · Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:40 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:

Airports are public facilities and must provide equal access to carriers. The only airport with commercial service in the U.S. that is privately ran and is not required to is Branson. Obviously there can be gate and capacity constraints that make starting service difficult, but that's not common at U.S. airports, and as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier. At slot controlled airport in the States, the airline would need to acquire the slot, and then the airport must accommodate the carrier. That's a crux of the Dallas Love Field legal battle that is ongoing, and which may soon reach a settlement. DAL is failing to accommodate carriers reasonably, and that is in violation of the law.

It might happen soon enough, because Air Italy is again throwing capacity in Euopre markets that are way overcapacity like BOS, LAX, MIA, etc., but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous.

The biggest issue with your replies is the lack of comprehension on your part. Let me help you out...

I say that BOS is facing gate constraints at terminal E and you reply with "BOS isn't slot controlled." Thanks, I never said it was.

I never say anything about there not being room for IG, only that I wonder if maybe the gate times they wanted weren't available and you come back with "as fast as BOS is growing, there's room for an Air Italy flight. When an airline says "I want to start service," the airport needs to make reasonable accomodations for the carrier." NOBODY said OR suggested there wasn't room only that perhaps it's not for the times they wanted.

I clearly say RUMOR has it that RAM will take the gate times of WW (should they fail) for their already announced CMN-BOS flight starting in July and you come back with "but to imply that Royal Air Maroc took a "slot" from Air Italy is ridiculous." AGAIN - I SAID RUMOR. That's it, just a rumor. I didn't say RAM took the gate times. I said rumor.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend what you're commenting on?

You literally said the word slot dude.

Nothing is stopping Air Italy from announcing Boston if it wants.

Context dude. It was clear I was talking about gates the whole time, of which BOS is majorly constrained at the international terminal in the evenings when IG would operate.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net