Hello friends,
I have brought this up inside other threads and got some good info back. But as this route is quite important to me and when one considers what's coming...the World Cup and Olympics, I am really getting anxious about United starting Newark to Rio, non-stop. Currently the only way to fly on United to Rio from EWR will include a stop somewhere, or code share (for now) with TAM.

I count 5 United aircraft in total touching down in Brazil. Two 777, two 767-400 and one 767-300.

That seems like a lot of United metal here already. How do these flights do already?

Is there enough traffic data to indicate if there is a market for EWR to GIG? How would that impact the other 5 flights? What happens when the TAM options from JFK disappear? Can United regain some of those pax?

Also, I'd assume this route could only manage a 767-3 (perhaps a 787- fingers crossed)

Very curious, THANK YOU!

EWR-GIG was operated by CO at one time with a D10 (late 90s.)

I could see it coming back but they would have to get the gov't approval first, no?

Also anybody know how EWR-EZE performs since it was moved from IAD?

Personally I think the macro-economic picture will seriously influence US-Brazil flying more than any upcoming sporting event.

UA does not need to do anything in Brazil till October 2014 when it gets 7 frequencies back from US Airways, and even then it would be a waste to use them for GIG as there are already vacant frequencies that can be had for free to serve Rio today.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2): even then it would be a waste to use them for GIG as there are already vacant frequencies that can be had for free to serve Rio today.

Yes, but it's best for UA to utilize them somewhere than to have them go dormant and risk them being allocated to a competitor. EWR-GIG is definitely first in line for new service before anything else United can start in Brazil.

Quoting C010T3 (Reply 3): Yes, but it's best for UA to utilize them somewhere than to have them go dormant and risk them being allocated to a competitor

I don't see UA operating a longhaul route simply to tie-up the slot, especially with open-skies around the corner. Attention to individual segment performance has increased since the merger.

Anyhow, if the economy holds up there are a few other options in Brazil I know they are looking at as well.  

Agreed with LAXIntl, I believe the economic scenario right now is quite different from 6 months ago.
I heard rumors that UA was planning to announce the route, but it very well be that they decided to wait a little.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter): I count 5 United aircraft in total touching down in Brazil. Two 777, two 767-400 and one 767-300.

Soon 3 772, 1 764 and 1 763. IAH-GIG is scheduled to become 772.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2): Personally I think the macro-economic picture will seriously influence US-Brazil flying more than any upcoming sporting event.

One important point. Rio is a mixed destination/origin not a one-way flow city. If Real gets stronger, more Brazilians fly abroad, but in the case of Rio, if the Dollar become stronger, Americans probably will come more.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter): Is there enough traffic data to indicate if there is a market for EWR to GIG? How would that impact the other 5 flights?

It would impact EWR-GRU and IAH-GIG. But would allow UA to become more competitive in Rio's market. They dominate the desired oil & gas route (IAH) and would dominate a portion of the financial as well as would offer the best connecting point in the Northeast vs AA or JJ.
And now with JJ about to join Oneworld, they will lose their 3 current code-shares (MIA, CLT and JFK). IAH alone would work ?

Doesn't UA get a pair of slots back from US this year? Where will they employ those? Should have enough w/b slack by then w/the 2 788's coming online in 2H2013.

I do recall the DC-10 from EWR to GIG. In fact I flew it RT in the '90's.

I have been VERY loyal to UA since 1995 for a few reasons which aren't worth mentioning, but since then I have always delt with one or even 2 stops to get here (in in Rio now). Also, back then VARIG was alive and part of Star Alliance. There are 4 pieces of UA metal into GRU today, I go to the United Club there (which has always had great food - and now renovated so it's not as shabby as before) then jump onto the tag. That eats an extra 3 hours (but if I was to be entirely honest, I don't care because I love to travel). At nighttime departures the "Smiles" lounge at GIG has about 25 people who sit up when UA860 is called, at GRU the fairly large lounge is PACKED!!! In fact a month ago I was denied entry because it was at legal capacity!!! I thought if 80% of these folks are paid BF pax then United would be raking in a lot of money, no?
Flight #31 EWR to GRU on a 767-400 is full, with FA's announcing "we have a full plane tonight". The 767-400 (which I love if you cared to know) has a huge BF section. While I know some are non-rev pax or upgrades, there aren't many if you look at the upgrade list on the plasma screen.

All of this above are just my observations, no way to tell if at the end of each day those 5 aircraft landing in Brazil is truly a cash machine for UA, but I would assume the IAH to GIG must be if they are upguaging to a 777.

With TAM gone (along with its non-stop JFK / GIG) plus the enormous United network from EWR, it seems like its worth a 763. If they did add EWR / GIG, where would that put them competitively against AA and DL?

ALSO! It just never occurred to me until reading above "no code share w TAM from Miami or Orlando and no Charlotte with US on its way out"
If I was dear Jeff, I think I'd sweat that a bit. Could United get a MIA slot back? Or start Orlando? Crazy I know: 8 UA aircraft from the USA to GRU/GIG, do you think they would first fill that Florida void before EWR/GRU/GIG?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): Anyhow, if the economy holds up there are a few other options in Brazil I know they are looking at as well.

Given that UA, the same way of its competitors, can operate its 752 to make moderate increases in Brazil, it is time for UA to react to last growths announced by AA. Current economic scenario in Brazil is not an obstacle for they launch routes like IAD-BSB or EWR-REC.

How deep into Brazil can a UA 757 go? IF it could make Rio from EWR, I would be on it in a second, but she doesn't have legs that long? Right? And I agree, if the could make IAD to BSB that would be great for United's capital to capital strategy.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9):

IAH-BSB would be great too. Latin American network.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9): How deep into Brazil can a UA 757 go? IF it could make Rio from EWR, I would be on it in a second, but she doesn't have legs that long? Right? And I agree, if the could make IAD to BSB that would be great for United's capital to capital strategy.

It couldn't fly EWR-GIG, it is just too long.
The best it may do would be EWR-MAO or IAD-BSB. Brasilia could be a good market for UA 752.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 7): With TAM gone (along with its non-stop JFK / GIG) plus the enormous United network from EWR, it seems like its worth a 763. If they did add EWR / GIG, where would that put them competitively against AA and DL?

Yes, specially with the lack of Canada-GIG flights. EWR could offer valuable connections such as Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary (Oil city), besides other markets.
No doubt UA can run a daily EWR-GIG.

I would be on the first flight, seat 1A.

I would also urge United to serve Ypioca ouro, my favorite cachaca.
In fact United should serve Ypioca on ALL their Brazil flights with Caiparhinas in BF and GF!

- Bem Vindo a Bordo!!!

Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): Why did CO cancel their EWR-GIG flight?

It ran EWR-GIG and EWR-GIG-CNF for a while, but the GIG-CNF tag went away in 2000 or so. EWR-GIG was cut around 9/11 in connection with the abrupt pulldown of DC-10 service, in favor of a tag from GRU.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): And if I'm not mistaken didn't CO also at some point operate EWR-EZE and canceled that route as well?

CO won the rights to start EWR-EZE in 2001, but deferred the route prior to 9/11 and subsequently never launched it. There was another abortive attempt to start service in 2008 or so, but the frequency went to IAH, operating as CO51 FRA-EWR-IAH-EZE and CO52 EZE-IAH-EWR.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 14): It ran EWR-GIG and EWR-GIG-CNF for a while, but the GIG-CNF tag went away in 2000 or so. EWR-GIG was cut around 9/11 in connection with the abrupt pulldown of DC-10 service, in favor of a tag from GRU.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): Why did CO cancel their EWR-GIG flight? And if I'm not mistaken didn't CO also at some point operate EWR-EZE and canceled that route as well? Since the EWR-GIG flight was operated by a DC-10 why didn't they put a 767 on the route?

As said above, they cancel during the post 9/11 events. And after that, the fact is that due to the oil & gas industry, IAH become the key hub for Rio de Janeiro when talking about UA. They probably run a fantastic route with very, very strong business demand.
The question is : UA primary focus in Brazil isn't Rio and that's clear. Oil has been a key industry for Rio since 2003 and despite that, UA runs a 1 stop flight for other 5 years before they even start this non-stop service (and since day 1 the older continuation market become better than the non-stop to the point it deserved a larger plane when Continental split the service). UA in the other hand, never decided to run a non-stop to Rio (they got the current IAH-GIG from the merger) and it is right now the only one airline with a tag-on service (use to be BA, AA, LA, LH and UA) Sao Paulo-Rio. All the others decided to split services and now serve both Rio and Sao Paulo with non-stops (LHR, JFK, SCL and FRA).

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 14): It ran EWR-GIG and EWR-GIG-CNF for a while, but the GIG-CNF tag went away in 2000 or so. EWR-GIG was cut around 9/11 in connection with the abrupt pulldown of DC-10 service, in favor of a tag from GRU.

That's not really accurate. The DC10 was retired almost immediately after 9-11 and was replaced on the EWR-GIG non stop by the B764. I know because I operated it several times.


We did a tag on to Belo Horizonte for a while then dropped that but the Rio service stayed on the 764 for a while.

When JJ goes to Star Alliance in 2014, Copa will be the only Star Alliance member serving CNF. I wonder if United is looking at CNF?

I heard (spoke to) a UA GIG manager who said they were told an EWR/GIG non stop was seriously being considered because flying 75 people on a 777 from GRU to GIG (the tag) is not exactly cheap. But he also said they would have to anyway because there is no more room at GRU to park large aircraft for the day, while GIG has plenty of parking spots.

He did say HQ has said they would prefer to lose the lag and start a non stop to GIG from EWR. "I" guess then one of the 4 UA ac at GRU can tag on BSB etc instead? Probably the IAD flIght. I would love to read that in the papers!

Quoting VC10er (Reply 18): But he also said they would have to anyway because there is no more room at GRU to park large aircraft for the day, while GIG has plenty of parking spots.

Might UA start its own daylight GRU-EWR to solve the parking issue?

Quoting VC10er (Reply 9): How deep into Brazil can a UA 757 go? IF it could make Rio from EWR, I would be on it in a second, but she doesn't have legs that long? Right? And I agree, if the could make IAD to BSB that would be great for United's capital to capital strategy.

A 757 can definitely do EWR-LIM which is around 6 hours. Not sure what South American markets would call for nonstop service to EWR on a 757. It's only a matter of time before we see EWR-GIG on a 767 or 777.

IMHO, it would be best to operate 757 on IAH-BSB or to Recife. Given the fact that UA hasn't launched Houston-Santiago yet, I doubt we will see this in the near future. They seem to be only concerned with the BIG South American cities (GIG, GRU, EZE) or Latin American cities that can be served with the 73G, ERJ, or 738.

AA is blessed with an MIA hub and it's great to see them taking advantage of flying to new and seasonal destinations. Unfortunately, IAH just isn't positioned well enough to fly to some of these smaller markets in S.A.

UA EWR-GIG restart (it was CO route and old UA flew it too) isn't a question of if but of when.
UA scared of the yields, flying EWR-GIG-JNB may solve that.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 18): "I" guess then one of the 4 UA ac at GRU can tag on BSB etc instead? Probably the IAD flIght.

Another tag may make sense as it would provide through/connection service to ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR.
However, looking at a map, is BSB the best tag? Obviously more government related but check out other possibilities.

529 miles - BSB, Brazilia - 2.5 million - nonstops to MIA by AA and TAM
307 miles - CNF, Belo Horizonte - 2.4 million - nonstop MIA AA and TAM
223 miles - CWB - Curitiba - 1.7 million - connections to USA
537 miles - POA, Porto Alegre - 1.4 million - connections to USA

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 21): UA EWR-GIG restart (it was CO route and old UA flew it too) isn't a question of if but of when. UA scared of the yields, flying EWR-GIG-JNB may solve that.

I agree. But GIG-JNB? Are you serious?

I remember when CO ran the DC10 on EWR-GIG. I remember some strange trivia about this flight's weird timing. The flight was all night flying to Rio from EWR. Then it actually flew back as a day light flight back to EWR, flying all day arriving in the evening. I don't remember how long the flight had this timing.

I also recall in the 90's CO ran EWR-SCL on the DC10. It didn't last.

I wonder if they would consider trialing an EWR-GIG flight as seasonal in the northern winter. IIRC, EWR-FCO is flown summer only by a 764 and ends around October. They could shift the equipment to fly to GIG to take advantage of some winter tourist traffic and test the yields. If things work well, then they could devote resources to make it year 'round.

How about SFO-GRU on a 763 to connect to the Pacific network? California to Brazil is almost at a minimum and I am certain UA could carve out a great niche.

Just realized KE serves LAX-GRU and AA is about to start that as well. UA Should really consider it before they miss the boat...

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 25): How about SFO-GRU on a 763 to connect to the Pacific network? California to Brazil is almost at a minimum and I am certain UA could carve out a great niche.

UA 763s cannot be utilized on segments >12hours due lack of crew rest facilities.

Also the concept of Asia-Brazil connections via the US is an oversold one. With visa headaches and the cost, its hardly an optimal solution for traveler when they can go via Europe, Middle East or even Canada much easier.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 25): Just realized KE serves LAX-GRU and AA is about to start that as well. UA Should really consider it before they miss the boat...

Actually AA and KE are the reasons UA should stay far away from such a route. Too much capacity as is.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 7): With TAM gone (along with its non-stop JFK / GIG)

Did I miss something? Did TAM announce they will discontinue flying JFK-GIG? I was just looking at booking a flight with them on this route and it was still in their system on the dates in September that I was looking at. If this service is ending, when will that happen?

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 23): I agree. But GIG-JNB? Are you serious?

Some U.S. airline may still hold the Brazil-South Africa traffic rights, that airline most likely is United.
We don't see Star Alliance SA starting JNB-GIG so the route may be UA to take if they see a market.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 22): However, looking at a map, is BSB the best tag? Obviously more government related but check out other possibilities. 529 miles - BSB, Brasilia - 2.5 million - nonstops to MIA by AA and TAM

Tag-on from GRU to other Brazilian cities may not work, not because of low demand but because there may be very hard to get slots for the take-off and landings @ GRU when UA needs them.
You may add GYN to BSB international traffic catchment area (then making it 4 million)

Quoting HALFA (Reply 27): Did I miss something? Did TAM announce they will discontinue flying JFK-GIG? I was just looking at booking a flight with them on this route and it was still in their system on the dates in September that I was looking at. If this service is ending, when will that happen?

It's not ending. Effective 12AUG13, TAM will increase frequency on the GIG-JFK route to a daily service with red-eye flights in both directions utilizing the new B763s transferred from LAN:
JJ8078 GIG 22:53 JFK 07:55+1 B763 Daily
JJ8079 JFK 19:10 GIG 06:05+1 B763 Daily

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 20): A 757 can definitely do EWR-LIM which is around 6 hours

More like 8 hours +


I have done it many times !

Quoting VC10er (Reply 18): But he also said they would have to anyway because there is no more room at GRU to park large aircraft for the day, while GIG has plenty of parking spots.

Actually, starting EWR-GIG means discontinuing the tag-on flight, but that would mean that they would have a 4th aircraft in need for a parking position at GRU. Currently, 3 stay at GRU and 2 at GIG.
Starting EWR-GIG in Winter 2014 would be perfect timing, since it's exactly when new parking positions will become available at GRU.

Quoting HALFA (Reply 27): Did I miss something? Did TAM announce they will discontinue flying JFK-GIG? I was just looking at booking a flight with them on this route and it was still in their system on the dates in September that I was looking at. If this service is ending, when will that happen?

No, what he means is that JFK-GIG will no longer an option for him, since he only flies Star Alliance carriers.

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 29): It's not ending.

Quoting C010T3 (Reply 31): No, what he means is that JFK-GIG will no longer an option for him, since he only flies Star Alliance carriers.

Ok, thanks for the clarification!

Aloha,
HALFA

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26): Also the concept of Asia-Brazil connections via the US is an oversold one. With visa headaches and the cost, its hardly an optimal solution for traveler when they can go via Europe, Middle East or even Canada much easier.

Yet around four-fifths the market transfers via the U.S.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26): Actually AA and KE are the reasons UA should stay far away from such a route. Too much capacity as is.

Yield might suck, but 10 weekly flights in a market as huge as California-Brazil is nowhere near "too much capacity."

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):

Wow? Really? I had no idea! Northbound I've seen it on flightaware at 6 hours.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 33): Yet around four-fifths the market transfers via the U.S.

I have no clue where you get your data.

Per MIDT booking data here are the largest Sao Paulo - Far East markets, and top 3 market share airlines.

SAO-TYO - EK, QR, LH
SAO-HKG - SA, EK, QR
SAO-SHA - EK, QR, AF
SAO-OSA - EK, QR, LH
SAO-CAN - EK, QR, CA
SAO-SEL - KE, QR, TK
SAO-BJS - EK, AF, QR
SAO-TPE - KE, SQ, SA/CX codeshare
SAO-DEL - TK, EK, LH
SAO-MNL - QR, EK, KL
SAO-BKK - QR, EK, SA
SAO-SIN - SQ, QR, EK
SAO-KUL - EK, QR, Kl
SAO-JKT - EK, SQ, TK

In most cases the top 3 airlines represent >50% of market carried. As you can see there is not a single via US routing in the bunch except KE.

Data current for 6-months ending December.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34): Wow? Really? I had no idea! Northbound I've seen it on flightaware at 6 hour

It's a lot further than you think. Almost 3000 Nautical miles and that's great circle, considerably further than that on airways.


Never had a flightime less than 7.30 north or southbound and came closer to 9 hours sometimes, often had full tanks and even then fuel could be tight.


What kind of aircraft did you see with a 6 hour flight time on this route ?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35): I have no clue where you get your data.

My data is LatAm-Asia for 2011, not SAO-Asia.

The concept that getting a U.S. visa is a hassle is a gross exaggeration. It's not whatsoever. Obviously the ME3 carriers have done a great job penetrating Sao Paulo, but the U.S. remains the most important connecting point for LatAm-Asia.

[Edited 2013-07-06 02:50:16]

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 37): hassle

What exactly is the definition we are all using for "hassle"?

One rich man's breeze is a poor man's hassle.

While I'd concur it is not as bad as many make it out here on a.net it is also not some simple and cheap process that takes a day of planning and that is it.

Just a dream:
After JJ gone from *A, UA could drop the GIG tag from GRU and start SCL using the same slots. At the same time, they would start EWR-GIG nonstop.
By doing this they could get all *A traffic on GRU-SCL (such as LH, LX), start the GIG nonstop route, and not face parking issues at GRU.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 33): Yield might suck, but 10 weekly flights in a market as huge as California-Brazil is nowhere near "too much capacity."

It's pretty cheap already; they're practically giving it away and KE is still not that full.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 21): UA scared of the yields

The time for NYCGIG has probably passed at this point, as a) the yields on NYCGIG are not very good--fares are pretty much identical to MIAGIG but about 15% farther, and b) Brazil has been flat-lining for about a year now, with no uptick in sight, never mind the recent protests.

The more US to Brazil the better,

Today one can fly from either GRU or GIG to IAH, ORD, IAD and EWR. Which means the connectivity is awesome given those hubs. The short comings are that for anyone living outside Houston, it is always one stop to GIG. With TAM going away soon, there is NO feed from other major Brazilian cities to GRU or GIG.

It is very lop-sidded. IMHO, if SA)">UA (or Star A) can't fill the TAM void, I assume SA)">UA will see a drop in pax on their current flights only further weakening them here. Ironically, unlike many, I find my Brazilian business partners LOVE United.

Flying inside Brazil is no picnic.TAM at least provided something to a *A flier. With ZERO alliances, Iwill just fly Azul and GOL if I have to.

Besides my begging on my knees before Jeff for an EWR/GIG non-stop, I plan to also beg for a few more Brazil routes from IAH: BSB, FOR etc.

Back to the void: are their any candidates for intra-Brazil codeshares or alliances? SA)">UA is NOT the only *A member in dire need of one: LH, SQ, TP, LX,SA, Ethiopa, Air Canada all come to mind.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 23): I also recall in the 90's CO ran EWR-SCL on the DC10. It didn't last.

I'm very surprised that UA doesn't have an SCL flight at all. It's a major part missing from their route network. Even one flight at day with a 767 from one of the big hubs (IAH?) seems like it would fill up based on connections into the hubs...

Quoting SVA402 (Reply 42): I'm very surprised that UA doesn't have an SCL flight at all. It's a major part missing from their route network. Even one flight at day with a 767 from one of the big hubs (IAH?) seems like it would fill up based on connections into the hubs...

I hope to see SCL and EWR-GIG as well, but remember these routes take most of two aircraft to operate each route. With overnight flying in each direction, with two aircraft, UA would end up with availability in the US between something like 9am to 8pm - enough for a domestic roundtrip or maintenance opportunity/floating spare. I'm not recommending it, but if a market gets large enough for a second flight, daytime service in each direction could be done without any additional aircraft.

I know what I am about to say next is almost as crazy as saying United should buy 4 747-8i for GIG/SCL for each route...  Ok, other airlines have done it...if opening these routes would be considered GROWTH in terms of revenue (not just more lines on the globe) couldn't United lease 4 767-3ER's rather quickly and easily? Unitil more 787's arrive and free up some 767's?

I can only ASSUME, as this level of knowledge is WAY beyond me, but wouldn't there be perfectly fine 767's to be had for cheap? If UA is making some difficult trade-off decisions on what routes to fly due to lack of "right sized" aircraft, why would adding some ex-well maintained 767's be such a bad idea?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 40): The time for NYCGIG has probably passed at this point, as a) the yields on NYCGIG are not very good--fares are pretty much identical to MIAGIG but about 15% farther, and b) Brazil has been flat-lining for about a year now, with no uptick in sight, never mind the recent protests.

But Rio have something different: when USD becomes stronger, more Americans fly to Rio and more/less replace Brazilians. As for yields, it is not different from MIA as it is the same plane, even being a more premium traffic. AA for example should try to fix a 3 class product to Rio from NYC. This can make a difference, specially now. It's always interesting to see people that use to fly F to London, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo, flies J to Rio because there's limited F supply. I use to see singers, Hollywood people, businessman, CEOs, Executive directors... all on J aboard AA 763's.

Quoting SVA402 (Reply 42): I'm very surprised that UA doesn't have an SCL flight at all. It's a major part missing from their route network. Even one flight at day with a 767 from one of the big hubs (IAH?) seems like it would fill up based on connections into the hubs...

So do I, they could do a Rio tag, as: Sao Paulo flights are consolidated, can help increase demand for a new service to Rio as well as there's less competition for SCL-GIG (there's a lack of a morning GIG-SCL, late afternoon SCL-GIG) with just 2 non-stops vs up to 8 between Sao Paulo and Santiago.
UA could even plan a mini-hub to connect ASU, MVD and SCL out of GIG. And I expect the future operator to invest in potential operations like this.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 45): But Rio have something different: when USD becomes stronger, more Americans fly to Rio and more/less replace Brazilians. As for yields, it is not different from MIA as it is the same plane, even being a more premium traffic. AA for example should try to fix a 3 class product to Rio from NYC. This can make a difference, specially now. It's always interesting to see people that use to fly F to London, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo, flies J to Rio because there's limited F supply. I use to see singers, Hollywood people, businessman, CEOs, Executive directors... all on J aboard AA 763's.

AA's F seats follow the demand--if they saw there was demand for F to GIG, they'd put it on JFK and/or MIA.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 46): AA's F seats follow the demand--if they saw there was demand for F to GIG, they'd put it on JFK and/or MIA.

In concept yes. But do not follow economic trends. Amazing there will be no F seat on a non-stop GIG-US and there is to Middle East, Europe and even Africa.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 47): In concept yes. But do not follow economic trends. Amazing there will be no F seat on a non-stop GIG-US and there is to Middle East, Europe and even Africa.

There's a reason for that. If there was F demand to the US, AA/UA/JJ would put F capacity. Where is there F to Africa? EK has F to just about every longhaul destination, so I'm not sure that's much of a testament of anything. The only F I see to Europe is LH to FRA and BA to LHR, if they even put a config w/ F.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 45): UA could even plan a mini-hub to connect ASU, MVD and SCL out of GIG. And I expect the future operator to invest in potential operations like this.

It's good news GIG isn't slot restricted, but if UA is looking to cover some void left by JJ moving to OneWorld, in a possible UA GIG hub operation, a GIG-MIA flight may be a must.