Now that CO will launch EWR-LOS, will CO or any other U.S. carrier launch additional Africa service within the next 5 years? There must be some untapped potential for U.S. carrriers to serve the continent with their own metal as opposed to only using alliance partners.

What about Johannesburg? Cape Town? Cairo? Dakar? Addis Ababa? Nairobi?

One destination could be tagged to another. I could see it working. So many international markets are already well served, it might be worth further investigation.

Addis Ababa? Probably not. Nairobi. Not likely, given the security issues there. The Lagos route, while commendable, is a long shot for success, but it depends on peace and stability in Nigeria and the oil markets.

Egyptair has a flight from CAI to JFK, and I believe a tag on to LAX.

As for Dakar, there is not enough demand for this. Senegal is an ex-French colony, and flights via Paris are likely to be plentiful and sufficient for now.

As for South Africa, the distance is a problem. Two aircraft would be needed to operate a route to JNB and CPT. The only places that would be able to generate sufficient O&D and feeder service for such a flight already have a direct flight to South Africa (JFK and ATL) although South African is likely to move its flight to a Star Alliance/United hub (most likely IAD) at some point.

ContinentalEWR

Egyptair has a flight from CAI to JFK, and I believe a tag on to LAX.

LAX was dropped in 2002, due to the fall in passenger numbers after 9/11. YUL used to be an extension of JFK but now they get direct (summer) flights.

Horus

more service to ADD likely, but only from IAD. KQ probably will operate to MIA, as odd as that sounds. i still would wait for CO to start operating to LOS to consider that a done deal - very tough market.

new routings other than NBO-AMS-MIA are unlikely. markets are too well served via Europe and african carriers are in worse shape than ever - UY is a mess.

What are the security issues in NBO?????

No one mentioned ACC!

From what I see, this may be one of the only US-Africa routes with potential. Ghana Airways was very successful with it and only had to shut down because of the FAA coming down on them.

What about Casablanca or Marrakech as it's becoming a major destination for holidays and movie makers for its nearby city Ouarzazate, RAM is misusing this route, as there are high yields of Moroccan immigrants in Boston, they would love to see a us competitor as RAM charge a staggering $500 in low season to $1200 in high season comparing to longer european destination.

I don't think you'll see any other U.S. carriers venturing into the African market any too soon. Way to much risk at this time. I was just looking over my 1969 Pan Am timetable and we flew to virtually all of the cities listed above and then some with the exception of CAI. I'll be very interested in seeing well CO makes out at LOS. WO tried it last year and lost our shirt. The corruption is as bad as any place in the world. That's a way of life over there. We have received many queries to return service to ACC. No decisions have been made that I am aware of to start up in the near future.

Ed

Well, at this point, the only US carrier making bold steps to new markets is CO, and almost certainly, any new service to Africa from the US with US carriers would be initiated by them. Of course, some African carriers may start service to the US, for example, Egyptair looking into IAH, as well as EK (but they're not really Africa)...

DL took some long hard looks at both LOS and ACC from Atlanta in the late 90s... their concerns however were parts/services for the MD11, and security.

Random question, but when did Ethiopian pull out of Newark?

JBLU

The lack of direct service between the U.S. and Sub-Saharan African nations stems from a lack of understanding (or a relationship) of the region. I have heard numerous members comment about the level of corruption or lack of security being the primary reason for limited service between both continents, but I don't buy it. A lot of South American nations have problems with kidnappings, car jackings, and home invasions, but that doesn't stop the likes of AA and CO from expanding like hot cakes into the region. Modern day Moscow is known for its high levels of corruption, I don't see DL suddenly rethinking its need for a presence in that country!

If you were to ask the average American about their thoughts of Africa most responses would be; Lion King, AIDS, or the Jungle. Our growth potential is limited in their eyes. My country is a good example. Some American a.netters believe the ONLY reason why foreign airlines service the nation is because of the oil industry. This is a fallacy. Although oil is the primary source of revenue for our government, it hires close to the least amount of individuals among private sector businesses (how many individuals do you think it takes to keep an oil rig operational 24-7-365?) For anybody to think the planes are predominantly filled with Westerners simply flying in here to do oil related business, think again! It really isn’t unusual for us Africans to have successful non-oil and government (and thereby I mean corruption) related businesses. A lot of us (still in the minority though) can afford to take vacations around the world, or travel to Tokyo to buy consumer electronics for the purpose of trading (at ridiculously inflated prices) to our kinsmen.

Feel free to call me biased and ingrained in the social norms of the land, but until the stereotype of Africa being a dangerous place where one is going to get robbed and killed if he/she ventures to do business disappears, I doubt we will see more traffic (especially from the side of the Americans) develop between country and continent.

I think Ethiopian still operates to Newark, several times a week, via Rome.

Hey once AA or CO or UA starts service to Africa I am going.

I cannot explain why there is no service besides CO's planned service to Lagos. Is it security, codeshares or the American public? This wasn't always the case.

There is a history of US airliner service to Africa. In 1980, Pan Am flew to six sub saharan destinations:
Accra, Abdijan, Lagos, Dakar, Nairobi, and Monrovia. When you consider that at the time Pan Am served just 11 European cities and was the largest US operator to Europe at the time, it indicates there was a market. By 1988, Pan Am served 34 European destinations and just 1 African destination (Nairobi). Nairobi was served until PA's sale of the Atlantic routes to DL in 1991. For whatever reason, DL never choose to attempt service to Nairobi which had been successful for Pan Am.

TWA flew to North Africa for much of its history. Casablanca was served until the late 1970s as was Santa Maria in the Azores. Cairo was served until the end in 2001. During the 1970s Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam were served as well until the worldwide route swap with Pan Am, when PA abondoned Casablanca and Cairo in TWs favor.

Accra to the US is coming back soon...


http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=72335

A lot of South American nations have problems with kidnappings, car jackings, and home invasions, but that doesn't stop the likes of AA and CO from expanding like hot cakes into the region. Modern day Moscow is known for its high levels of corruption, I don't see DL suddenly rethinking its need for a presence in that country!

Be that as it may, the overwhelming majority of aforementioned airports are ICAO-cat1 and/or US carriers have a continuing [grandfathered] history of operating thereto.... the same cannot be said for many subSaharan African stations.

5NEOO, I agree with you. If safety and lack of traffic was really the problem we wouldn't see every major European airline flying to these destinations either. Bottom line is US airlines despite their size are still very parochial in their business approach.

US airlines are not noted for their geographical boldness. Not one of them serves any destination in the Middle East except CO to TLV, none go to India except DL, Eastern Europe and Russia get little service, and so on.

Don't forget the weekly nonstops Houston - Malabo and Houston - Luanda operated by World Airways.

PROSA is right. It's a geographical matter. Africa is too far from America and gone is the time when an American airline would try to fly everywhere no matter what, out of prestige.

The lack of direct service between the U.S. and Sub-Saharan African nations stems from a lack of understanding (or a relationship) of the region.

If there is money to be made then the service will follow. Your opinion, although well articulated and thought out, fails to take into account that most travelers to Africa from the US are willing to fly through Europe and pay the prices that are set. If the yields generate a large profit then more airlines will follow CO. I would be careful saying big bold statements and generalizations about the service until we see how CO does.

A lot of South American nations have problems with kidnappings, car jackings, and home invasions, but that doesn't stop the likes of AA and CO from expanding like hot cakes into the region

Have you ever considered that Africa is to Europe what Latin America is to the US. Last time I looked I saw that many prestigous European airlines fly only to a few Latin American cities while CO, AA, and others fly to many Latin American cities. In this case Europe is to Mombasa as Medellin is to the US. It has much more to do with economics than anything else, even if admittedly US knowledge of Africa is quite limited.

Good post!

(A lot of South American nations have problems with kidnappings, car jackings, and home invasions, but that doesn't stop the likes of AA and CO from expanding like hot cakes into the region

Have you ever considered that Africa is to Europe what Latin America is to the US. Last time I looked I saw that many prestigous European airlines fly only to a few Latin American cities while CO, AA, and others fly to many Latin American cities. In this case Europe is to Mombasa as Medellin is to the US. It has much more to do with economics than anything else, even if admittedly US knowledge of Africa is quite limited.)


I'll take it a step further.....I remmeber getting frustrated by how many cities European airlines served in Africa and the Middle East and how few were served by Pan Am and TWA. This was about 1987 or so. I then remember opening an Eastern timetable and comparing EA's service to South and Central America to BA, LH and AF and I realized exactly what you are saying. Moreover, I compared those same European airlines service to the far east with NW and UA and found that at that point in time ( though not the case anymore) both US carriers had a much larger presence in the region than any European carrier. I remember learning that day that US Airlines route structrues are based on Economic considerations and where the US has trade relations more than anything else.

5NEOO,

I agree fully with what you have said, especially about the diversity of the market between Nigeria and the US. To the best of my knowledge, Nigeria Airways flights were often fully booked and the flights were carrying plenty of Nigerians living in the US visiting home. Add to that the business traffic (mostly energy industry) you have a winning formula for sufficient demand. What remains is sorting out the logistics of the operation. American carriers should consult the European airlines that are well experienced with operating into Sub-saharan Africa.

PROSA....

Dont forget about NWA flying AMS-BOM x2 daily and the currently suspended AMS-DEL service. The BOM service just went to twice daily, NW042 and NW046, both originating in MSP      

US airlines are not noted for their geographical boldness. Not one of them serves any destination in the Middle East except CO to TLV, none go to India except DL, Eastern Europe and Russia get little service, and so on.

Not only is one of these statements incorrect... but they're also quite pointless.

Not one of them servers... but?
None go...except?

either they have service or they dont, end of story.

US airlines are not noted for their geographical boldness. Not one of them serves any destination in the Middle East except CO to TLV, none go to India except DL, Eastern Europe and Russia get little service, and so on.

Well since the object of an airline is to turn a profit, few airlines nowadays are known for geographical boldness unless they make money or get subsidized, until and if the US airlines can make money flying to Africa, it isn't going to happen. Don't know why US airlines should be more "geographically adventurous" than other nations airlines. And before people post routes of those other int'l airlines, believe me, they make money, if they didn't they get pulled.

Be that as it may, I am gladdened that US Accra will start again it was only a matter of time. Since everybody in New York has their parking tickets processed in Ghana now, and lots of people's medical records, i'm not surprised. Yes lots of call centers there in the so-called "dark continent" Wouldn't be surprised if Ghana is the next Bangalore in ten years. Amazing country, amazing people.

ET stopped EWR in September I think. All flights are now IAD-FCO-ADD.

Usatoeze, your statement is not very solid because there are far more European airlines serving Latin America than there are US airlines serving Africa and the Middle East. US airlines are simply too restricted in their vision and that is one reason they are in such bad shape. Without "diversification" they became vulnerable. That is why European carriers were able to handle the effects of 9/11 much better.

"US Airlines route structrues are based on Economic considerations and where the US has trade relations more than anything else"

And so is everybody else and I agree somewhat but if that is the case why don't they fly to the Middle East and India? Today's US airlines seem to have reached their limits for International expansion, much of which is due to the widespread of airline aliances.

There may be some other factors as to USA based airlines offering services to Africa and Middle East (except Israel). There are also many other places they can serve with a lot less hassle and make money with.
When PanAm and TWA served those areas, there was regulated pricing as to international routes, as well as subsidies from the USA government to make sure a USA based airline served those places for image purposes during the Cold War era.
There wasn't the hostility in the past as we see today against the USA. There are now several solid established airlines based in Europe as well as in the Middle East & Africa that have better connections, fewer hostilities directed at them. Don't forget that PanAm and TWA were important to the starting of many airlines thourghout the world or their re-establishment after WWII.
As to the corruption issues, the USA has a number of laws on it's books that prohibit bribery and payoffs to foreign government officials and corporations, thus limiting the buying of access to routes, security and labor peace.
Security of people, crews, their bags, aircraft and when on the ground isn't a good place for an American based airline with today's hostile political enviroment. American companies and government posts are big time terror targets as has been shown over the last 25 years. This also adds to the costs of operations. Union rules, cultural and security issues would make it difficult to have staff based in many Middle East and Africa countries.
Real life yeilds in the coach seats would probably be poor. Most of the money making coach business would be seasonal, so most coach fares would probably have to be low to fill the seats and would thus limit profits overall.
Many countries have their own 'national' airline, often partially government owned or subsidised and want to protect it.
Language is another issue, as few in the USA know another language beyond English, and are very unlikely to know Arabic, African languages and their many variants. This makes it near impossible to recruit staff in the USA.
Equipment support, manintenance would probably require a lot of new and expensive investment. BA, LH, and regionally based airlines have already have that in place and may use different equipment components than USA based airlines would use.

Anyone have the traffic figures for NYC-LOS? Is that single sector viable as an O&D to fly a 777 daily?

How many people work in the oil industry that would justify a 300 seat airliner on a daily basis for a single international destination over 5200 miles away? Plus the initial start-up costs?

Just asking.

5NEOO, I agree with you. If safety and lack of traffic was really the problem we wouldn't see every major European airline flying to these destinations either. Bottom line is US airlines despite their size are still very parochial in their business approach.
-----

There are many economic and social ties between current African countries and their former masters in Europe. The US does not have these ties. That is why a lot of service going into and out of Africa is to Europe. The fact that Europe is the nearest major industrialized region is also a factor. As others have said, it is kind of like the US and Latin America. The US did not directly govern large areas of Central and South America for long periods, but there have always been strong economic ties.

As for what most Americans think about Nigeria, most of us don't even know about the oil there. All most of us ever hear about that country comes from spam emails trying to scam our bank account information from us. A lot of these do not even come from Nigeria. Because all they see is these emails, most Americans think of Nigeria as some sort of small, poor and corrupt backwater. Most of us don't know that it is a very populous and diverse country, and that is richer than many of its neighbors.

As for the bribery issue, part of this is a cultural difference. It is true that in the US it is illegal to bribe foreign officials. What the writers of the "Foreign Corrupt Practices" act forgot was that what we in the US may see as a bribe is seen as a kind of "tip" in some other cultures. When the government does not pay its officials a living wage, this is sometimes the only way these people can get a decent living. It is the same system America has for many private sector service personel.That is not to say all corruption is excusable, just that it is not always the unmitigated evil it seems to be to most Americans. Also, I would suspect most companies could get around this act if they really wanted to by acting through foreign partners or subsidiaries.

"When PanAm and TWA served those areas, there was regulated pricing as to international routes, as well as subsidies from the USA government to make sure a USA based airline served those places for image purposes during the Cold War era."


This seems true based on the Pan Am route map from 1980. Five cities were served in East africa- one was Monrovia, Liberia where there are more traditional US ties than the rest of Africa. But the other 4 were likely served merely for image purposes and seemed to have only 1 or 2 flights a week running. Though not in Africa, Karachi was consistently served by Pan Am almost until the end. Karachi doesn't even get the full share of European carriers it should- probably because PIA is a relatively strong national carrier by Indian Subcontinent standards, and Pakistan means a lot less to Europe than it did to the USA during the Cold War. Also, I noticed in 1983, Pan Am served war torn Beruit while American marines were being blown to bits. Probably a combination military transport/image routing. Pan Am also served Sarejevo during the 1984 Winter Olympics.

I wonder though, if the US Government may want to subsidize a carrier or two to fly to Africa. The US does need some major image enhancement in the 3rd world. Being in Chennai currently, I realize that Delta's announcement of new service here has put the idea of US interests in the different light- it appears that the US as a whole is more interested in South India (Which has been demonstrated by Microsoft, etc in Bangalore) when in reality it is just Delta seeing a potentially profitable int'l routing. Airlines do serve as an informal national ambassador.

i don't think safety is an issue. it is very expensive to open a new gate, as airlines can probably count on subpar loads for the first 6 months.

unless profits are an ABSOLUTE SURE THING, US carriers would be crazy to open a direct link when almost every capital city is served via a code-share partner.