There are basically three major airports in the continental US that can serve as effective Latin American hubs, MIA (first and foremost), LAX and IAH. We all know MIA is dominated by AA and IAH by UA, but I wonder if some enterprising airline could set up a hub in SJU to serve Latin America? I know AA had an operation there (inherited from TWA?) and operated services to the Caribbean, but I assume they found it more cost-effective to retrench into MIA than operate two hubs so close-by. So, could another airline make a scissor hub of sorts? If not, what factors impede such an operation from working?

They would need an economic base to do so. SJU doesn't really provide reason enough to set up an expensive operation.

Another huge problem for being a Caribbean hub is US customs. Requiring a US visa to transit really limits the market

IAHflyguy wrote:

There are basically three major airports in the continental US that can serve as effective Latin American hubs, MIA (first and foremost), LAX and IAH. We all know MIA is dominated by AA and IAH by UA, but I wonder if some enterprising airline could set up a hub in SJU to serve Latin America? I know AA had an operation there (inherited from TWA?) and operated services to the Caribbean, but I assume they found it more cost-effective to retrench into MIA than operate two hubs so close-by. So, could another airline make a scissor hub of sorts? If not, what factors impede such an operation from working?

Slight correction. AA never inherited their SJU hub from TWA. They established the hub entirely on their own from scratch back in 1987 or thereabouts. At the time Eastern Airlines also had a hub there by AA was the dominant player. I believe Eastern went out of business by 1989 and TWA would have added flights afterwards to replace Eastern before they were taken over by AA.

IAHflyguy wrote:

There are basically three major airports in the continental US that can serve as effective Latin American hubs, MIA (first and foremost), LAX and IAH. We all know MIA is dominated by AA and IAH by UA, but I wonder if some enterprising airline could set up a hub in SJU to serve Latin America? I know AA had an operation there (inherited from TWA?) and operated services to the Caribbean, but I assume they found it more cost-effective to retrench into MIA than operate two hubs so close-by. So, could another airline make a scissor hub of sorts? If not, what factors impede such an operation from working?

Why is LAX on here but DFW isn't? I am SFO based and have never connected through LAX to get to LatAm. However I have connected through MIA/IAH/DFW multiple times.

I don't see it. Latin America traffic without Mexico isn't high enough volume to support a large operation by itself without O&D traffic.
And LAX a large LatAm hub? By what standard? They don't even have a flight to the DR or Brazil which are the 2nd and 3rd largest LatAm market after Mexico. I suspect that DFW and ATL are larger LatAm hubs than LAX.

LupineChemist wrote:

Another huge problem for being a Caribbean hub is US customs. Requiring a US visa to transit really limits the market

How is that more of an issue then what AA currently offers out of MIA? Anyone connections from LatAm via MIA to another US destination would also need a US visa. And same could be said for IAH, DFW, ATL etc.

I think one benefit to making SJU a LatAm hub would be that most of all the flying could be done with narrow bodies especially now that we have the Max and NEO planes available. Potentially making more routes feasible.

In theory, this is where B6 could have expanded deeper into South America, if they wish(ed). They are one of the largest carriers at SJU and could have expanded their significance there (capturing the SJU O/D) and, also, 'fattening' with connecting to their banks/hubs (at FLL, JFK etc). With A321NEOLRs they could achieve decent ranges and/or be able to take on many other/stronger carriers, while not needing to use wide bodies to do so, thus their costs would be decently low (and/or potentially competitive).

That said B6 does also have some significant detractors to these plans in that:
- they are currently struggling with crew and aircraft availability (and these "North/South" routes are rather taxing on resources).
- they would also have to create a significant base at SJU, and with the current crew shortages, this will take time to develop.
- the economy of Puerto Rico is still in recovery, and is not where it once was (in the past).
- SJU is renovating, and in time - will be a better field to operate for them, from - however it was/is a work in progress (albeit a great one).
- they do not have significant partners in the region to assist with P.O.S. advantages (save for Azul, and even there, Azul may be interested in other partners).
- for many markets (and increasingly so) there is growing potential at SDQ with carriers there that might be able to best B6 on cost advantages.

That said, the business case for SJU once was, that many of the Caribbean locations did not possess airfields capable of supporting larger aircraft. Today, not only are 'smaller' aircraft more capable, but also, many of those aircraft can perform at the new fields that were built in the region. For this reason, many of these same destinations are capable of and/or favor non-stops to key U.S. destinations. How much of AA's SJU profitability/viability was based on those connections would be removed from the equation for B6, and keep in mind that B6 also has a significant operation at FLL, and a partner (in the NEA, at AA at MIA). Question remains, could B6 make better money, with multiple turns to/from/within the U.S., using the same aircraft/time? Let's see how/where/when the slack in the fleet comes in with the Spirit merger (and note that even Spirit's experiences to Latin America favored hub-to-spoke flying). Not saying that it is a bad idea, however these are alot of resources to offer to EZE, SCL, and Southern Brazil, if they so wished. Many of those customers will then have a choice, non-stop on AA vs. the Local Carrier (AR, Latam, AD, G3, AV, and/or new LCCs), or one-stops via CM or B6. Question remains, could B6 make better money, with multiple turns to/from/within the U.S., using the same aircraft/time?

airbazar wrote:

I don't see it. Latin America traffic without Mexico isn't high enough volume to support a large operation by itself without O&D traffic.
And LAX a large LatAm hub? By what standard? They don't even have a flight to the DR or Brazil which are the 2nd and 3rd largest LatAm market after Mexico. I suspect that DFW and ATL are larger LatAm hubs than LAX.

LAX-MEX, LAX-GDL, and LAX-SJD are all among the top 15 U.S.-int'l airport pairs. Each is busier than LAX-LHR. LAX-CUN, LAX-SAL, LAX-PVR also make the list. No routes ATL-Latin America make the top 50.

DFW-CUN, DFW-MEX, and DFW-SJD make the top 50 list.

Data are for 12 months ending 6/2022.

See Table 8. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 202022.pdf

FARmd90 wrote:

LupineChemist wrote:

Another huge problem for being a Caribbean hub is US customs. Requiring a US visa to transit really limits the market

How is that more of an issue then what AA currently offers out of MIA? Anyone connections from LatAm via MIA to another US destination would also need a US visa. And same could be said for IAH, DFW, ATL etc.

I think one benefit to making SJU a LatAm hub would be that most of all the flying could be done with narrow bodies especially now that we have the Max and NEO planes available. Potentially making more routes feasible.

Because MIA serves all the rest of the US and has tons of local demand to sustain routes. SJU would need the transfer traffic.

LAX might not be big to deep South America, but its a massive market to Mexico and Central America with many millions each year as MIflyer12 post indicates.