How come UA hasn't moved it's IAD-GIG flight to EWR?

Because the route has been tried multiple times, and failed.

The yield simply isn't there to justify the opportunity cost.

UA857 wrote:

How come UA hasn't moved it's IAD-GIG flight to EWR?

Um, didn’t they?

And canceled it?

UA doesn’t fly IAD-GIG. And hasn’t for a long time.

It's been tried I believe by CO and it failed on a DC-10, but I can't fully recall. I believe it's because of getting the correct flying rights once again to perform the route.

Brazil is a tough market in general and I think it's largely dominated by AA domestically. Be glad UA serves GRU from ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR etc. Delta just dropped DTW-GRU for instance.

I forgot that UA does fly IAH-GIG after all. Probably no EWR because it's purposed to route traffic via that hub.

oops I thought UA still flew IAD-GIG as according to Wikipedia?

UA857 wrote:

oops I thought UA still flew IAD-GIG as according to Wikipedia?

UA flies IAD-GRU.

GIG is not going thru the best of times. LATAM Brazil could not even make ends meet on the GIG-MIA route and cancelled it.

N649DL wrote:

It's been tried I believe by CO and it failed on a DC-10, but I can't fully recall. I believe it's because of getting the correct flying rights once again to perform the route.

Brazil is a tough market in general and I think it's largely dominated by AA domestically. Be glad UA serves GRU from ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR etc. Delta just dropped DTW-GRU for instance.

I forgot that UA does fly IAH-GIG after all. Probably no EWR because it's purposed to route traffic via that hub.

Yes pretty sure UA flew EWR-GIG before the D10s were retired, as they did with SCL and EZE as wel, which has returned.

But after the merger I also thought IAD-GIG was transferred to EWR.

But maybe that was EZE. And it was canceled, only to restart again.

I could be wrong.

1836Sam wrote:

N649DL wrote:

It's been tried I believe by CO and it failed on a DC-10, but I can't fully recall. I believe it's because of getting the correct flying rights once again to perform the route.

Brazil is a tough market in general and I think it's largely dominated by AA domestically. Be glad UA serves GRU from ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR etc. Delta just dropped DTW-GRU for instance.

I forgot that UA does fly IAH-GIG after all. Probably no EWR because it's purposed to route traffic via that hub.

Yes pretty sure UA flew EWR-GIG before the D10s were retired, as they did with SCL and EZE as wel, which has returned.

But after the merger I also thought IAD-GIG was transferred to EWR.

But maybe that was EZE. And it was canceled, only to restart again.

I could be wrong.

You are thinking of CO as UA never flew the DC-10s to South America. And yes, CO did fly EWR-GIG with the DC-10. CO also flew the EWR-SCL route but did not last too long: the DC-10 was huge for that route. CO only began flying to EZE on 2006 and with the 762; their DC-10s never made it to EZE.

You are thinking of the IAD-EZE flight that was transferred in 2012 to EWR, then suspended in 2013 and restarted in 2017. I think UA flew on some years during carnival to GIG from IAD, but I am not 100% sure of that. In any case, GIG was never flown as a stand alone flight from IAD year round.

dcajet wrote:

1836Sam wrote:

N649DL wrote:

It's been tried I believe by CO and it failed on a DC-10, but I can't fully recall. I believe it's because of getting the correct flying rights once again to perform the route.

Brazil is a tough market in general and I think it's largely dominated by AA domestically. Be glad UA serves GRU from ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR etc. Delta just dropped DTW-GRU for instance.

I forgot that UA does fly IAH-GIG after all. Probably no EWR because it's purposed to route traffic via that hub.

Yes pretty sure UA flew EWR-GIG before the D10s were retired, as they did with SCL and EZE as wel, which has returned.

But after the merger I also thought IAD-GIG was transferred to EWR.

But maybe that was EZE. And it was canceled, only to restart again.

I could be wrong.

You are thinking of CO as UA never flew the DC-10s to South America. And yes, CO did fly EWR-GIG with the DC-10. CO also flew the EWR-SCL route but did not last too long: the DC-10 was huge for that route. CO only began flying to EZE on 2006 and with the 762; their DC-10s never made it to EZE.

You are thinking of the IAD-EZE flight that was transferred in 2012 to EWR, then suspended in 2013 and restarted in 2017. I think UA flew on some years during carnival to GIG from IAD, but I am not 100% sure of that. In any case, GIG was never flown as a stand alone flight from IAD year round.

Yes, sorry, I meant CO.

That’s right CO’s initial EZE flight was from IAH as part of a competitive route award. Forget the routes (obviously from this post I forget a lot quite easily and I’m probably about to get this wrong) competing against that request but I remember being surprised that CO didn’t do it from EWR in the first place but that probably is why they got the route.

So if UA didn’t fly IAD-GIG, did they never fly MIA-GIG? Surely that would’ve been transferred up to IAD.

Continental also flew to Rio from Newark with the 767-400 in the early years of its service, we then flew a tag on to Belo Horizonte and back to Rio


I remember as I was in the right seat, those long Rio layovers were
something

EWR-GIG service fell victim to 9/11. Afterwards the frequencies were temporarily allocated to Delta, so that they could fly ATL-GIG. When they were about to resume it, the Brazilian currency suffered a maxi-devaluation because of the perspective of Lula as president, but they were not able to extend the dormancy any further, so they lost the frequencies altogether.
For a long time, the US side of the bilateral was maxed out, so Continental were never able to regain the frequencies. When they did, they opted to fly IAH-GIG.
At this point, United must be monitoring the market in order to assess if the relaunching the route makes sense. Considering how the Brazilian POS is stronger, Delta would have the upper hand in the market due to G3. If United launches EWR-GIG, Delta would make JFK-GIG year-round the next day.
If Delta doesn't go year-round on its JFK-GIG by W20/21, I'm positive that United will try something. The market is there, but the yields suffer a lot due overcapacity in several others city pairs between Brazil and the US.

GIG is low yield outside of a few longhaul destinations. AA is dropping JFKGIG after this month, although it is still selling in December. LA has pulled all longhaul out of GIG.

LAX772LR wrote:

Because the route has been tried multiple times, and failed.

The yield simply isn't there to justify the opportunity cost.

Not at all correct. UA has never flown EWR-GIG and thus have never "tried it multiple times". Continental had a daily DC10-30 service from EWR to GIG which was axed immediately after 9/11 and never to return.

If heard that Brazil is going to relax their visa requirements for Americans visiting Brazil. Perhaps that might spur some additional opportunities for traffic given currently what a PITA getting a visa from the Brazilian consulate is, and that people just don’t bother considering visiting as a result.

The major economic capital is GRU. GIG doesn’t have much in the way of business traffic.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The major economic capital is GRU. GIG doesn’t have much in the way of business traffic.

The volume of air traffic in RIO is equivalent to that of BUE. BUE, however, is slightly larger as a city and is ahead of RIO in terms of tourism. Are you then saying that VFR and outbound tourism are massive in RIO? That would be the only way to compensate the great difference in terms of difference to BUE, which is always credited in having healthy business traffic levels.

dcajet wrote:

UA857 wrote:

oops I thought UA still flew IAD-GIG as according to Wikipedia?

UA flies IAD-GRU.

GIG is not going thru the best of times. LATAM Brazil could not even make ends meet on the GIG-MIA route and cancelled it.

for awhile? UA tag ended the IAD-GRU to GIG. But the flight fizzled.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The major economic capital is GRU. GIG doesn’t have much in the way of business traffic.

There is Oil bussiness in Rio. This is why IAH-GIG has been there forever. In fact as a trivia IAH was the only city that sustained a big gauge to GIG than GRU for some time (772 x 762/3).

GIG-US is low yielding with one exception: IAH. That’s why UA chose IAH over EWR. The market is big and J heavy.

The Brazilian economy isn't doing too great and hasn't been for quite few years. GRU maintains a good amount of flights owing to the high amount of business traffic given GRU is typically where many global companies peg their Latin America headquarters. Also keep in mind from an aircraft utilization perspective Deep South America is not exactly the most efficient as we share the same time zone so planes often sit all day, so the breakeven point is higher which makes it harder for GIG to work.

If the Brazilian economy improves I can see quite bit of international growth at GIG - probably more seasonal during the northern winter (November to April). Great opportunity to utilize aircraft that otherwise sits or flies domestic routes when Europe traffic slows down.

1836Sam wrote:

So if UA didn’t fly IAD-GIG, did they never fly MIA-GIG? Surely that would’ve been transferred up to IAD.

Yes, they did, with the 763ER if memory serves. When the MIA operation was closed, only EZE & GRU were transferred to IAD. Rio lost its stand alone service, although (and here is where I am not 100% certain) GIG may have continued to be served via GRU.

dcajet wrote:

1836Sam wrote:

So if UA didn’t fly IAD-GIG, did they never fly MIA-GIG? Surely that would’ve been transferred up to IAD.

Yes, they did, with the 763ER if memory serves. When the MIA operation was closed, only EZE & GRU were transferred to IAD. Rio lost its stand alone service, although (and here is where I am not 100% certain) GIG may have continued to be served via GRU.

Thanks

LAXdude1023 wrote:

GIG-US is low yielding with one exception: IAH.

Don’t forget CLT. Still don’t know why that one was cut!

Will UA fly EWR-GIG anytime soon? I mean Star Alliance is absent between New York and Rio de Janerio. DL and AA already fly JFK-GIG.

golfingboy wrote:

If the Brazilian economy improves I can see quite bit of international growth at GIG - probably more seasonal during the northern winter (November to April). Great opportunity to utilize aircraft that otherwise sits or flies domestic routes when Europe traffic slows down.

UA thrice weekly EWR-GIG-EWR seasonal Thanksgiving to Easter might make some sense.

UA857 wrote:

Will UA fly EWR-GIG anytime soon? I mean Star Alliance is absent between New York and Rio de Janerio. DL and AA already fly JFK-GIG.

Doubt it, that’s why UA has IAH for. All Star Alliance partners can route their passenger via IAH or their own hub as well.

UA857 wrote:

Will UA fly EWR-GIG anytime soon? I mean Star Alliance is absent between New York and Rio de Janerio. DL and AA already fly JFK-GIG.

You just answered your question right there. Why would an airline pick up a route that, not only is low-yielding, but is also covered by its two major competitors...?

airzim wrote:

If heard that Brazil is going to relax their visa requirements for Americans visiting Brazil. Perhaps that might spur some additional opportunities for traffic given currently what a PITA getting a visa from the Brazilian consulate is, and that people just don’t bother considering visiting as a result.

They already did, over 1-year ago. U.S. citizens can now attain online e-visa. They also reduced the fee 75% for the visa.

https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/brail- ... ble-today/

I am always surprised how little traffic Rio has. In 2018 GIG+SDU had only 24 million PAX for a metro area of 12 million people (so equivalent to Paris or London).

Sao Paulo (inc. VCP) had 73 million PAX. That seems more logical.

SCQ83 wrote:

I am always surprised how little traffic Rio has. In 2018 GIG+SDU had only 24 million PAX for a metro area of 12 million people (so equivalent to Paris or London).

Sao Paulo (inc. VCP) had 73 million PAX. That seems more logical.

Beautiful city but I'm guessing it's reputation as an unsafe, high-crime destination scare off tourists. I also got the impression that while 12 million people live there, only a small percentage can actually afford to fly. Brazil's struggling economy also doesn't help.

1836Sam wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

GIG-US is low yielding with one exception: IAH.

Don’t forget CLT. Still don’t know why that one was cut!

The market between IAH and GIG is huge and has lots of J passengers. The market between Brazil and CLT barely exists.

1836Sam wrote:

N649DL wrote:

It's been tried I believe by CO and it failed on a DC-10, but I can't fully recall. I believe it's because of getting the correct flying rights once again to perform the route.

Brazil is a tough market in general and I think it's largely dominated by AA domestically. Be glad UA serves GRU from ORD/IAH/IAD/EWR etc. Delta just dropped DTW-GRU for instance.

I forgot that UA does fly IAH-GIG after all. Probably no EWR because it's purposed to route traffic via that hub.

Yes pretty sure UA flew EWR-GIG before the D10s were retired, as they did with SCL and EZE as wel, which has returned.

But after the merger I also thought IAD-GIG was transferred to EWR.

But maybe that was EZE. And it was canceled, only to restart again.

I could be wrong.

IAD-EZE was one of the first routes after the merger to be moved to EWR on a sUA 763 for EWR-EZE. I recall having the plane next to ours in 2012 flying EWR-MIA on a sUA 757.

Then EWR-EZE was dropped and came back a few years ago and is still flying today on a 764. For years UA flew MIA-EZE but that route got moved to IAD upon closure of the focus city and IIRC MIA-GRU was moved onto ORD-GRU.

Interesting that this topic should come up now because earlier this week UA's Network Planning posted a very detailed article on Flying Together.
Below is just a snippet from that article which really explains why UA serves some markets but not others.

"Why can’t we offer a flight that one of our competitors does? The simple answer is, we can’t be everything to everyone, everywhere. So, first things first: How do we decide when and where to open new routes? It all starts with hours upon hours of research. The Domestic and International Network Planning groups continually analyze passenger load and fare data for routes we don’t currently support before determining where opportunities for new service lie.
They’ll take 100 city combinations, for example, then slowly whittle that list down until they reach 10-15 that are viable for us based on customer demand and profitability forecasts.
A new segment requires assets, like airport gates and airplanes, not to mention paying customers. We’re not going to cannibalize assets being used for more profitable routes just to compete with a competitor in places where we would be operating at a deficit."

https://ft.ual.com/news/2019/03/14/why- ... -fly-there

It's a great article unfortunately I can't post the entire thing, this is but a small piece of the article that explains to employees why UA flies were we fly and why we don't fly to certain places.
Just because AA and DL can make JFK-GIG work doesn't necessarily mean UA can turn a profit off a EWR-GIG flight. The same is true for both AA and DL in other parts of the world UA can run a route and make a profit while AA and DL can't make the route work. We have to stop looking at airlines as equals and assuming just because one or two airlines can make a route work then all of the US3 should be able to make the same route route work. AA, DL and UA all have their strengths and they all have areas of weakness in their route structure. It would be foolish for UA to launch EWR-GIG especially given the fact that AA who is without question a much stronger competitor in the Brazilian market is reducing their JFK-GIG route to seasonal. If the strongest competitor is reducing their route to seasonal it is obvious that this route is not profitable except for a few months of the year at best.

Although Rio gets the tourism focus, The state of Sao Paulo carries the Brazilian economy with 33% of the countries PIB (GDP), compared to Rio's 10%. That's where the business traffic goes to and that's where the airlines make the routes economically feasible. As the Brazilian economy rebounds, Rio is still struggling because of security and political mismanagement. On top of that, GRU is better set up a base for connections throughout Brasil. So overall, Rio is a tough one to make the numbers work financially.

jayunited wrote:

Interesting that this topic should come up now because earlier this week UA's Network Planning posted a very detailed article on Flying Together.
Below is just a snippet from that article which really explains why UA serves some markets but not others.

"Why can’t we offer a flight that one of our competitors does? The simple answer is, we can’t be everything to everyone, everywhere. So, first things first: How do we decide when and where to open new routes? It all starts with hours upon hours of research. The Domestic and International Network Planning groups continually analyze passenger load and fare data for routes we don’t currently support before determining where opportunities for new service lie.
They’ll take 100 city combinations, for example, then slowly whittle that list down until they reach 10-15 that are viable for us based on customer demand and profitability forecasts.
A new segment requires assets, like airport gates and airplanes, not to mention paying customers. We’re not going to cannibalize assets being used for more profitable routes just to compete with a competitor in places where we would be operating at a deficit."

https://ft.ual.com/news/2019/03/14/why- ... -fly-there

It's a great article unfortunately I can't post the entire thing, this is but a small piece of the article that explains to employees why UA flies were we fly and why we don't fly to certain places.
Just because AA and DL can make JFK-GIG work doesn't necessarily mean UA can turn a profit off a EWR-GIG flight. The same is true for both AA and DL in other parts of the world UA can run a route and make a profit while AA and DL can't make the route work. We have to stop looking at airlines as equals and assuming just because one or two airlines can make a route work then all of the US3 should be able to make the same route route work. AA, DL and UA all have their strengths and they all have areas of weakness in their route structure. It would be foolish for UA to launch EWR-GIG especially given the fact that AA who is without question a much stronger competitor in the Brazilian market is reducing their JFK-GIG route to seasonal. If the strongest competitor is reducing their route to seasonal it is obvious that this route is not profitable except for a few months of the year at best.

Whoa whoa there, jayunited! Don't get the armchair CEOs triggered with offering insight from *actual* Network Planners. Too often folks on here never want to accept certain facts and "raisons d'etre".

No airline can be everything for everyone. No airline can fly everywhere just because it "should" (which is in and of itself HIGHLY subjective--and subjectivity doesn't make money). Airline simulation games are *not* like actually running a successful real-life airline.

UA857 wrote:

How come UA hasn't moved it's IAD-GIG flight to EWR?

Are you sure you didn’t mean IAH? And the answer is obvious anyway.

Cointrin330 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Because the route has been tried multiple times, and failed.
The yield simply isn't there to justify the opportunity cost.

Not at all correct. UA has never flown EWR-GIG and thus have never "tried it multiple times". Continental had a daily DC10-30 service from EWR to GIG which was axed immediately after 9/11 and never to return.

Calm down; nobody was talking about UA. I was thinking of VP's advertised EWR service circa 1998, but forgot that it was a codeshare on CO metal.

Judge1310 wrote:

Whoa whoa there, jayunited! Don't get the armchair CEOs triggered with offering insight from *actual* Network Planners. Too often folks on here never want to accept certain facts

And that crazy thing is, it's not saying anything that common sense wouldn't already tell someone:
A profit-oriented airline is not going to devote an asset to a new routing, if the expected network (not just standalone) benefit isn't greater than the opportunity cost of flying that aircraft elsewhere.

That's the answer to EVERY "why doesn't (airline) fly to (place)" question

Cointrin330 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Because the route has been tried multiple times, and failed.

The yield simply isn't there to justify the opportunity cost.

Not at all correct. UA has never flown EWR-GIG and thus have never "tried it multiple times". Continental had a daily DC10-30 service from EWR to GIG which was axed immediately after 9/11 and never to return.

Not correct, as stated above we replaced the DC10 service with the 764 on this route
until it eventually was shut down


I flew quite a few myself