CLT-GRU gone?

[1AA]

did you write that before or after you read AA's press release about winter season market reductions? You do realize it is heavily weighted to premerger AA markets.   You do realize that AA is not the largest int'l airline in either NYC or at ORD?
 

do you also realize that based on earnings reports for the year to date that AA does not generate the US passenger industry's highest cargo revenues?

I'll keep you in suspense who does.

I think I am going to use my Ignore feature for the first time. I'll keep you in suspense who gets the inaugural ignore.

 

[WorldTraveler]

because you can talk about freight carried but don't want to hear about who generates more review doing so?

go for it.

I ignore no one.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

 

[AirwAr]

...
More Europe from CLT and no more growth to Europe from MIA?   I disagree.   IMO, CLT is tapped out on growth to Europe (and then some).   Europeans actually want to fly to Miami - witness all the other European airlines that fly to Miami, and not to Charlotte.   LH has the lone flight to MUC, right?   Miami is an actual destination people want to visit, like Orlando, Las Vegas and San Francisco.   
...

 
I see what you mean about MIA being a destination point...but I question if MIA really is poised for growth to EU.  It doesn't feel like the merger with US really brings much more demand out MIA to EU than was already there.  I guess if you believe CLT is going to reduce EU flying...the paxs have to go somewhere...but would MIA be the answer?  Maybe if CLT-Central America and/or CLT-Caribbean service is moved to MIA...that could increase EU demand. 
 
I'm going to go with 1AA on this...that MIA won't see much EU growth.

 

[WorldTraveler]

evidence of how well MIA is positioned for European growth with a half dozen hubs north of MIA on the East coast can be shown by the fact that the new MXP flight will be split between JFK and MIA.

MIA may have a significant local market but there likely isn't a single longhaul int'l flight operated by a US airline that is even 75% local. With all of those hubs north of MIA and the geographic advantage those hubs have, to think that can AA support a flight that is also offered via multiple other hubs (and most of the major European cities fit that category) is well, the opposite of enlighted thinking.

 

[FWAAA]

I see what you mean about MIA being a destination point...but I question if MIA really is poised for growth to EU.  It doesn't feel like the merger with US really brings much more demand out MIA to EU than was already there.  I guess if you believe CLT is going to reduce EU flying...the paxs have to go somewhere...but would MIA be the answer?  Maybe if CLT-Central America and/or CLT-Caribbean service is moved to MIA...that could increase EU demand. 
 
I'm going to go with 1AA on this...that MIA won't see much EU growth.

I don't see MIA-Europe growing because of the merger with US Airways, I see MIA-Europe growing regardless of the merger as AA continues to build the MIA hub.   Not only do Europeans want to visit Miami, but South Florida has a large population of somewhat well-heeled retired folks with the time and money to travel to Europe.   I don't have proof, but someone once posted that US was filling the European flights at CLT with a lot of people to/from Florida as well as the CLT-only bergs (those Carolina towns with 2-3 daily props or CRJs to CLT).  
 
I don't know if MIA will get a daily flight to TLV, but I think that's more likely than PHL getting a second daily flight.   Plus, as you mentioned, the possibility of Caribbean and Central American connections from MIA might help draw Europe travel to/from MIA.   

 

[robbedagain]

we always have pax travelin bwi-clt-fra   lhr and other European dest

 

[WorldTraveler]

not sure what Europe has to do with CLT-GRU but MIA is the biggest origin/destination for European traffic in Florida and it does carry above average yield.

But MIA also already has almost 60% of all of the air service between Florida and Europe.

MIA is very well served to Europe.

US is also the second largest carrier carrying connections between Florida and Europe, second only to the airline that has a hub that sits in the state directly north of Florida. That hub also carries much higher yielding traffic between Florida and Europe than any other hub.

US' yields are below average compared to the industry but have improved considerably over the past few years. US' traffic is split between CLT and PHL and is heavily skewed to Star hubs.

premerger AA is relatively small in the connecting Europe to Florida market - UA is larger.

Thus, AA faces the the same issue in the Florida market that it faces elsewhere in Europe; new AA's network is heeavily geared to Star and MIA is not an ideal hub for connections compared to hubs further north in the eastern US.

The fact that MIA already has an abundance of air service relative to the rest of Florida as well as the size of larger other hubs north of Florida makes it very difficult and unlikely for AA to try to compete in the connecting Europe market which AA/US does not already carry.

 

[cltrat]

because you can talk about freight carried but don't want to hear about who generates more review doing so?

go for it.

I ignore no one.

that's not the topic stupid try reading comprehension 101

 

[WorldTraveler]

and GRU isn't in Europe but somehow the discussion went down that route. don't you want to show your anger at those who took that detour?

And if a bunch of freight was supposed to save CLT-GRU, it clearly didn't work because passenger airlines can't sustain routes if the passenger operation is not profitable. Cargo is a great "extra" to increase profits but a route has to be profitable on a passenger-only basis.

specific to CLT-GRU, what hasn't been mentioned is that US has operated the flight for most of the tie that it has existed using slot times at GRU which were very much at a disadvantage to other carriers.

US made the decision to enter GRU after years of trying to get viable slots but finally did so with an early morning arrival and a morning departure that has never worked outside of the largest markets.

US now has decent slot times but the chances of US/AA rebuilding the reputation of the route are too high.

The SE outside of MIA can support Brazil service. ATL has four flights/day to Brazil. It is a shame that CLT will lose it all and not all of the connections can easily be as carried over MIA.

When US entered Brazil and the most route case was initiated, US indicated a desire to serve Brazil from CLT and PHL. Given that Brazil fully becomes Open Skies down the road, perhaps AA will restart GRU.

It also isn't clear what happens with the slot that DL had to provide US as part of the LGA-DCA slot agreement since it was linked to continuing CLT service becaues US started CLT-GRU with a leased slot from UA.

DL replaced the slot it was giving to US with a new slot (frequency really) that is used for DTW-GRU.

Now it would appear that there is at least one extra slot pair and perhaps two because UA has the one it was originally leasing to US.

Given AA's decision to move GRU slots to start VCP (Campinas) service, perhaps the Brazil market is stabilizing such that there are more frequencies available than carriers want to use.

it's also worth noting that AA's flights from MIA and JFK to VCP will depart in the middle of the night.

 

[cltrat]

the talk of flights to Europe out of CLT were at least in the ball park of the topic, the first thing you did was chime in like a fifth grader with " Guess who's making the most off of freight?"
 
kindly keep DL out of this thread and in the DL forum where it belongs capice?

 

[FWAAA]

we always have pax travelin bwi-clt-fra   lhr and other European dest

Good point.  Every time you see passengers flying from BWI to CLT so they can connect to Europe, that's some evidence of the weakness of the pmUS network and specifically,  the weakness of CLT to Europe.   Logically, BWI passengers should be flying to PHL to connect to Europe, right?
 
BWI-CLT is 361 miles in the opposite direction from the CLT-Europe flights - that's a lot of wasted backtracking.   BWI isn't going to have flights to Europe (other than BA's LHR) so everyone flying from BWI will be connecting.   In the future, they should probably connect at PHL or JFK, helping to top-off flights that already have better O&D to Europe than Charlotte offers.   

 

[autofixer]

Good point.  Every time you see passengers flying from BWI to CLT so they can connect to Europe, that's some evidence of the weakness of the pmUS network and specifically,  the weakness of CLT to Europe.   Logically, BWI passengers should be flying to PHL to connect to Europe, right?
 
BWI-CLT is 361 miles in the opposite direction from the CLT-Europe flights - that's a lot of wasted backtracking.   BWI isn't going to have flights to Europe (other than BA's LHR) so everyone flying from BWI will be connecting.   In the future, they should probably connect at PHL or JFK, helping to top-off flights that already have better O&D to Europe than Charlotte offers.   

I'm sure that's the plan. CLT to Europe will have 2 X LHR and 1 X FRA, that's the hubbub anyway.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the talk of flights to Europe out of CLT were at least in the ball park of the topic, the first thing you did was chime in like a fifth grader with " Guess who's making the most off of freight?"
 
kindly keep DL out of this thread and in the DL forum where it belongs capice?

if the air freight wasn't related to CLT-GRU, then it is no more in the ballpark than the menu in coach to LAX.

just 3 flights/day from CLT to Europe?

that's quite a fall.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'm sure that's the plan. CLT to Europe will have 2 X LHR and 1 X FRA, that's the hubbub anyway.

 
Probably correct, since the DOJ was requiring that one of the 3 (including 2 flown by thirdworld alliance BA) PHL-LHR flights would have to be abandoned.  The Brits will probably give up one PHL flight, and put it in CLT.  LUS will add another MAD, as Parker (or was it Kirby) alluded to in the recent video.