CLT to GRU loaded
- Thread starter JetguyCLT
- Start date
- Status
Crazy Daytripper
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 11
That would make a nice crazy day drip lol fly into GRU and out of GIG
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
hate to break it to you but those times are absolutely horrid and the flight will lose huge amounts of money. A 0430 arrival into practically any city is not exactly the way to gain any kind of premium traffic while an 0830 departure is so early that there is no time for connections from elsewhere in Brazil.
Add in that TAM and AA are both adding a significant amount of capacity to GRU, including by upgrading several flights to 777-300s and adding daylight flights into bigger markets like MIA and NYC, and it will be very difficult for US to make any kind of money in the market.
Gol is adding one-stop service to the US via SDQ which will further put pressure on fares and further put pressure on the low fare end of the market.
Plus, the Brazilian Real is hit its highest levels in several years and the vast majority of coach passengers between the US and Brazil are Brazilian tourists.
US entered GIG w/ fares well below the market average and they remain the low fare leader among nonstop carriers although they have made considerable progress in bringing fares up in the last year.
GIG has much better airport infrastructure, though, and US could be looking at these types of slot times for 2 years before Brazil and the US have Open Skies and when Brazil is obligated to provide improved access to US carriers, although there still is no assurance that they will provide any significant number of new slot times to US carriers - that didn't happen w/ LHR.
Latin America is a traditionally rich market but the growth of Open Skies and the influx of new capacity will put downward pressure on fares which makes it much less appealing to add capacity only to receive fares that can't even cover the inflated costs of operating in the region.
A one day flight to GIG is possible but flying into GRU and out of GIG will give you very little time to get out of the airports of either city.
Add in that TAM and AA are both adding a significant amount of capacity to GRU, including by upgrading several flights to 777-300s and adding daylight flights into bigger markets like MIA and NYC, and it will be very difficult for US to make any kind of money in the market.
Gol is adding one-stop service to the US via SDQ which will further put pressure on fares and further put pressure on the low fare end of the market.
Plus, the Brazilian Real is hit its highest levels in several years and the vast majority of coach passengers between the US and Brazil are Brazilian tourists.
US entered GIG w/ fares well below the market average and they remain the low fare leader among nonstop carriers although they have made considerable progress in bringing fares up in the last year.
GIG has much better airport infrastructure, though, and US could be looking at these types of slot times for 2 years before Brazil and the US have Open Skies and when Brazil is obligated to provide improved access to US carriers, although there still is no assurance that they will provide any significant number of new slot times to US carriers - that didn't happen w/ LHR.
Latin America is a traditionally rich market but the growth of Open Skies and the influx of new capacity will put downward pressure on fares which makes it much less appealing to add capacity only to receive fares that can't even cover the inflated costs of operating in the region.
A one day flight to GIG is possible but flying into GRU and out of GIG will give you very little time to get out of the airports of either city.
The times and associated potential 2 year low yields are not really important for this first investment into arguably the top South American market. Strange though the flights are using a 767-200 on the premium GRU route instead of a 332 (5 new coming in 2013). Even though it's low tourist season for GIG, GRU should be targeted as a prime business destination, with year round premium services. Maybe just a placeholder until the merger offer decision is made, since If there is a merger, the CLT/GIG/GRU will likely evaporate in favor of the existing MIA routing.
silverbird007
Senior
Just ignore WT and maybe he/she will eventually get the hint and go away. I hate to break it to WT but Delta aint all that, Ive flown them many times. The planes are usually clean, the fa's are ok. Other then that just another US domestic carrier. I think AA and UA are a step up as far as the travel experience overall. Also with AA's new lower cost the tables will be turned, Delta always comes into a market and undercuts AA and UA, but now I think its payback time. And dont even waste your time with a 500 word biography on Delta. you are blocked and I dont read your BS. Unfortunately your quotes still show up on other posts. Get over yourself!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
US' approach to developing new int'l markets has long been to start service w/ very low fares to stimulate traffic and then increase fares a couple years into the market as their new is known.
They have succeeded fairly well at doing that in a number of European markets; in others they haven't been near as successful, esp. in markets dominated by another US carrier - such as in key Star hubs where US' average fares are far below the average compared to other carriers, even non-Star carriers.
If a merger with AA happens, US can obtain some decent slot times from AA (although AA is not about to have a 0430 arrival in any market) and CLT-GRU might work.
But it doesn't change that GRU has no viable slots for any new carrier and US might be forced to live with these slot times for two years or more. During the peak season, it will be no problem for US to fill seats to GRU with passengers seeking discount flights - which historically have been few and far between to S. America. But the number of "lower yield" options to Brazil has increased considerably and continues to do so and that will make it harder and harder for US to come close to covering costs in the eight months per year or more that are not peak season to Brazil.
It is not that far from out of the realm of possibility that US could lose tens of millions of dollars per year trying to operate a place holder until a better slot can be obtained; US simply doesn't have the level of profitability necessary to lose that kind of money.
Even if a merger is announced tomorrow, it could take 2 years or more for gov't approvals and route consolidation and slot swaps to take place which means US is on its own at GRU for quite some time.
Nobody has said that even w/o a merger US can't make it in S. America but it could be a very long time before the route delivers profits to the company and in the meantime US has just one more reason to not pay its employees industry average compensation.
we've read your posts about blocking me... yet you always manage to write something... apparently the "block" isn't working real well since you managed to read this.
Besides, I don't block you and undoubtedly alot of people don't block others, so I get the chance to respond to you regardless of what you do.
Specific to the topic, you do realize that the carriers w/ the highest average fares in the US-Brazil market are UA followed by DL, both of which are above average, followed by AA and then US?
Part of the reason that UA and DL have above average fares is because of geography; AA competes from MIA which is a shorter route - but AA has also added enormous amounts of capacity to Brazil over the past several years in order to try to cement their position as the region's dominant carrier - but in the process, average fare growth has slowed considerably.
It doesn't really matter what you think of DL.
They are operating their business well enough to continue to grow revenues and cut costs in non-employee areas such as fuel so that their employees continue to receive pay increases in an industry where many employees have not seen pay progression in years. And DL is growing their mainline operation which provides career progression for DL employees.
The fact that DL's financial performance has grown as much as it has recently says that the people who really do matter believe that DL offers a high quality product.
The fact that DL's customers are spending money at the levels they are is the only real opinion that matters.
US would not fly a route for two years and lose money on it, CLT-HNL is a prime example of a flight they stopped flying as it wasnt profitable.
This thread is about US flying to GRU, not delta and its flights and career for its employees.
This thread is about US flying to GRU, not delta and its flights and career for its employees.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
I didn't say a word about DL until the post above mine mentioned it....
I have said that US Airways will not succeed in the GRU market for 2 years with the slots it has...and given that GRU has no requirement to provide increased access to carriers from the USA until 2014 when Open Skies becomes effective, it is a very real possibility that US will be stuck w/ its current slot times at GRU for 2 years.
US' performance at GIG shows they started the route at a substantial fare discount to other carriers only to improve their performance significantly in the past year but US had good slot times at GIG from the beginning of the route.
In GRU, US will be forced to operate at very poor times including an early morning departure from GRU. Only the largest markets in the US have ever successfully supported daylight flights and they still leave later than what US will be forced to do.
The only DL connection to this route is that DL and US agreed as part of the slot deal that if US was unable to start service to GRU by 2015, DL would provide US w/ one of DL's slots as well as ticket counter, operational, and back office space. With US' decision to start the flight, it either means that DL is providing that space to US - which might mean that DL will provide the services for US which only reduces DL's costs - or DL will be released from the obligation to US to help US start its own service.
And if the AA merger is such a certainty, why the rush to start a route that will most certainly lose money when US could easily piggyback on AA's huge operation in a relatively short period of time?
I have said that US Airways will not succeed in the GRU market for 2 years with the slots it has...and given that GRU has no requirement to provide increased access to carriers from the USA until 2014 when Open Skies becomes effective, it is a very real possibility that US will be stuck w/ its current slot times at GRU for 2 years.
US' performance at GIG shows they started the route at a substantial fare discount to other carriers only to improve their performance significantly in the past year but US had good slot times at GIG from the beginning of the route.
In GRU, US will be forced to operate at very poor times including an early morning departure from GRU. Only the largest markets in the US have ever successfully supported daylight flights and they still leave later than what US will be forced to do.
The only DL connection to this route is that DL and US agreed as part of the slot deal that if US was unable to start service to GRU by 2015, DL would provide US w/ one of DL's slots as well as ticket counter, operational, and back office space. With US' decision to start the flight, it either means that DL is providing that space to US - which might mean that DL will provide the services for US which only reduces DL's costs - or DL will be released from the obligation to US to help US start its own service.
And if the AA merger is such a certainty, why the rush to start a route that will most certainly lose money when US could easily piggyback on AA's huge operation in a relatively short period of time?
autofixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,804
- Reaction score
- 241
Let's see, 0430 arrival, 1 hour to clear customs and ag. That is 0530. Thirty minutes to walk to your connecting gate or your taxi, that is 0600. Huumm. Let's say you are connecting on another flight for business and you want to be at your destination mid-morning, seems okay to me. Automobile traffic is horrindous in GRU, so 0600 to arrive at a 0900 meeting in centro. It seems okay to me, but what do I know, I just thought it through.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
of course it all makes sense logically... but a 0430 arrival means you have to wake up about 0300 local for breakfast - or miss it - and go to bed at 7 pm local CLT time in order to get any benefit from sleeping - which is part of the purpose of an overnight flight. Most people don't go to bed at 7 or 8 pm and wake up at 3 am unless you can avoid it.
That's still just the southbound. on the northbound, US will be dependent on passengers only from metro Sao Paulo who are willing to leave their houses at 0500 or earlier in order to check in for an 0830 flight....
It still comes down to the fact that other carriers offer flights at prices as good as or better than what US would like to offer at times that are far more palatable....which means that US has no choice but to heavily discount in order to fill seats - and even then won't be able to find sufficient demand to fill flights on many off-peak flights - which in Latin America can be 60% of the flights.
If the times made sense, other airlines would have taken them earlier, including US... these slot times have been available for a number of years but US finally just decided to accept them.
My question still remains: If the AA merger was so certain, why is US racing to start a flight that will clearly lose money when they could wait, invest in what is necessry to make the merger work, and then coordinate with AA's leading network in Latin America?
That's still just the southbound. on the northbound, US will be dependent on passengers only from metro Sao Paulo who are willing to leave their houses at 0500 or earlier in order to check in for an 0830 flight....
It still comes down to the fact that other carriers offer flights at prices as good as or better than what US would like to offer at times that are far more palatable....which means that US has no choice but to heavily discount in order to fill seats - and even then won't be able to find sufficient demand to fill flights on many off-peak flights - which in Latin America can be 60% of the flights.
If the times made sense, other airlines would have taken them earlier, including US... these slot times have been available for a number of years but US finally just decided to accept them.
My question still remains: If the AA merger was so certain, why is US racing to start a flight that will clearly lose money when they could wait, invest in what is necessry to make the merger work, and then coordinate with AA's leading network in Latin America?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
funny, I didn't remember reading anywhere that any of us have our "own" forums.
Let me know where I can see the "forum assignment" of each member. <g>
I would guess that you probably don't want to find anything because it would probably also say that US employees should not be trying to tell everyone why AA should merge with them.
US is starting service to GRU now because they are now behind the 8 ball in int'l route development and the "other 3" have substantial advantages over US that make it much harder for US to catch up...
nothing wrong w/ US for trying, but then their boss shouldn't be telling us why their average fares trail the rest of the industry or why they need to merge w/ one of the big 3.
So, I'd be happy to desist from reminding the US fan club about the difficult US has in building its network as long as US fans and mgmt would refrain from telling us about their below average fares and their need to merge w/ someone.
Deal?
Didn't really think so.
Let me know where I can see the "forum assignment" of each member. <g>
I would guess that you probably don't want to find anything because it would probably also say that US employees should not be trying to tell everyone why AA should merge with them.
US is starting service to GRU now because they are now behind the 8 ball in int'l route development and the "other 3" have substantial advantages over US that make it much harder for US to catch up...
nothing wrong w/ US for trying, but then their boss shouldn't be telling us why their average fares trail the rest of the industry or why they need to merge w/ one of the big 3.
So, I'd be happy to desist from reminding the US fan club about the difficult US has in building its network as long as US fans and mgmt would refrain from telling us about their below average fares and their need to merge w/ someone.
Deal?
Didn't really think so.
johnny kat
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 330
Does anyone know how well US does with freight on these flights?
Currently (through at least 8/2013), DL's RT fares JFK-GRU are typically $400 higher than US's LGA, or PHL or CLT-GRU and DL is using a 767-300. Obviously this could change significantly based on spring bookings. I'd love to see DL's reaction to a PHL-GRU 332 - which I think should have been the route in the first place.
Based on your history of long, long, long posts here and elsewhere stating reasons why a AA-US merger will fail and/or won't happen, I'd speculate that if they do merge, you will evaporate like CLT-GRU. Let's be logical, DL (and you) have a wealth of reasons why a AA/US merger would be UN-beneficial to your WEALTH.
- Status
