Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mercure1 wrote:When are they due to receive 787s?
mercure1 wrote:When are they due to receive 787s?
777-500er wrote:What does the schedule look like?
simpv wrote:Great! When was the last time SFO had a direct link to Italy? 2001?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
georgiabill wrote:Hopefully after their 787'S start to arrive IG might consider 3x-4x MXP-BOS if only seasonally to start.
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/
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/
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Blerg wrote:What happened to their India flights? I know they were postponed but have they started yet?
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.