CLT to GRU loaded
- Thread starter JetguyCLT
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
DL's JFK-GRU and ATL-GRU flights are operated with 767-400 aircraft; DTW-GRU uses a 767-300 with a difference of about 35 seats between the two. DL's 764s have twice as many business class seats as US' 332s but about 12 fewer total seats.
CLT-GRU makes the most sense for a "first route" to a S. American city. PHL-GRU would have, should have, could have.... if it happens then we can talk about it....
US carried about 750 lbs of cargo per day between CLT-GIG; for comparison, that other carrier from ATL carried 10,000 lbs per day to GIG. Those are just the facts.
I'm sure you'd like to think that just because I happen to believe an AA/US merger will be bad for everyone except the execs that I am unilaterally opposed to anything else US does. Au contraire. US has done a nice job of building their network and I have acknowledged as much on more than one occassion. I've noted what works and challenged those who say that US' European network is nothing but trash.
But CLT-GRU with the current slot times is not going to be anywhere close to what US needs to grow its network or provide the revenue the company needs to justify a merger.
DL's first flights into S. America were to São Paulo, continuing onto Rio which later became a separate route. GRU is the most important market in S. America so US knows they have to start service there if they want to expand in the region.
EZE would be the next logical city to add.
But keep in mind that ATL is a much larger hub and city and DL is a larger, stronger carrier. You can also see the comparison between comparable DL routes from ATL to Europe and US routes to the same cities from CLT.
It isn't as hard to figure how well US will perform based on other routes as you might think.
If you think I'm going away, merger or no merger, you will be mighty disappointed. I ain't goin' anywhere.
And I STILL have yet to hear anyone tell me why US is in such a rush to add new routes to S. America using such poor slot times if they are so certain the merger is coming.
Someone, anyone?
CLT-GRU makes the most sense for a "first route" to a S. American city. PHL-GRU would have, should have, could have.... if it happens then we can talk about it....
US carried about 750 lbs of cargo per day between CLT-GIG; for comparison, that other carrier from ATL carried 10,000 lbs per day to GIG. Those are just the facts.
I'm sure you'd like to think that just because I happen to believe an AA/US merger will be bad for everyone except the execs that I am unilaterally opposed to anything else US does. Au contraire. US has done a nice job of building their network and I have acknowledged as much on more than one occassion. I've noted what works and challenged those who say that US' European network is nothing but trash.
But CLT-GRU with the current slot times is not going to be anywhere close to what US needs to grow its network or provide the revenue the company needs to justify a merger.
DL's first flights into S. America were to São Paulo, continuing onto Rio which later became a separate route. GRU is the most important market in S. America so US knows they have to start service there if they want to expand in the region.
EZE would be the next logical city to add.
But keep in mind that ATL is a much larger hub and city and DL is a larger, stronger carrier. You can also see the comparison between comparable DL routes from ATL to Europe and US routes to the same cities from CLT.
It isn't as hard to figure how well US will perform based on other routes as you might think.
If you think I'm going away, merger or no merger, you will be mighty disappointed. I ain't goin' anywhere.
And I STILL have yet to hear anyone tell me why US is in such a rush to add new routes to S. America using such poor slot times if they are so certain the merger is coming.
Someone, anyone?
silverbird007
Senior
According to WT NO ONE does anything right except Delta! I dont think WT gets out much! LOL
I'm surprised that you would ask that ?, of which I already stated my opinion. IT'S A FOOT IN THE DOOR ! Are you telling me glorious DL doesn't make investments in new routes?? And Please reply in less than 10 sentences so I can turn off my garbage filters.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #20
of course it is a foot in the door.... I wouldn't expect US to sit on the sidelines if they don't expect a merger. The real question is why waste the money if they really think a merger is imminent....
Of course airlines make investments in new routes... including DL. I'm not saying that US shouldn't start this route. I am saying that US will lose alot of money while the route ramps up.
The other side is that Latin America routes in general and GRU in particular historically are high revenue routes... so even if you cut the average fares in half for US-Brazil, US would still make more than what it makes on many routes to Europe in the off season.
BTW, US managed to report flat RASM growth for the month of Nov... AA and UA had negative RASM growth which means they made less revenue per seat mile flown than they did a year ago. So, US did beat a good chunk of the industry. Of course you know who actually had positive RASM.
Of course airlines make investments in new routes... including DL. I'm not saying that US shouldn't start this route. I am saying that US will lose alot of money while the route ramps up.
The other side is that Latin America routes in general and GRU in particular historically are high revenue routes... so even if you cut the average fares in half for US-Brazil, US would still make more than what it makes on many routes to Europe in the off season.
BTW, US managed to report flat RASM growth for the month of Nov... AA and UA had negative RASM growth which means they made less revenue per seat mile flown than they did a year ago. So, US did beat a good chunk of the industry. Of course you know who actually had positive RASM.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
CLT-GRU is not new. It has been in process for some time. One reason the cargo has been so low out of GIG has been the lift capability of the 767ERs (or so I'm told). The A332s aren't pushed at all as far as lift and payload go on this route.
Driver...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #22
exactly, the 762 is not a great cargo aircraft when it is carrying passengers. US' 767s are lower weight versions and Brazil has one of the highest mandatory baggage allowances in the world - 2 bags at 70 lbs. GRU is also at 2500 ft of elevation which compounds the performance issues.
The point is just that cargo - which could care less about the departure and arrival time - won't be much of a help because of the aircraft.
Yes, CLT GRU has been in the works for some time and I certainly don't slight US for moving forward w/ the best slot times they can get.
My only word here has been that the slot times are far from ideal, there is more and more capacity coming into the market, and the aircraft US is doing will do little to help.
Of course they have to start somewhere... but US has been playing catch up to other carriers for years and carving out a presence in S. America will be no different. But of course they should try.
Employees should just have an understanding of the financial drain the route will have on US until it is established - which may be several years until new slot times are obtained.
The point is just that cargo - which could care less about the departure and arrival time - won't be much of a help because of the aircraft.
Yes, CLT GRU has been in the works for some time and I certainly don't slight US for moving forward w/ the best slot times they can get.
My only word here has been that the slot times are far from ideal, there is more and more capacity coming into the market, and the aircraft US is doing will do little to help.
Of course they have to start somewhere... but US has been playing catch up to other carriers for years and carving out a presence in S. America will be no different. But of course they should try.
Employees should just have an understanding of the financial drain the route will have on US until it is established - which may be several years until new slot times are obtained.
The times are awful, no one is going to want to fly then and as a result the fares and yields will get trashed. Besides, USAir is using a 30 year old Piedmont 767-200 with no individual entertainment in Y and recliner seats in C/Envoy no way will that be competitive.
But US thinks people in the Miami/South Florida area will find flying to LHR via CLT convenient when more convenient non-stops on AA, BA, VS exist with superior amenities and seats, they probably think the same about GIG.
Josh
But US thinks people in the Miami/South Florida area will find flying to LHR via CLT convenient when more convenient non-stops on AA, BA, VS exist with superior amenities and seats, they probably think the same about GIG.
Josh
So what no one cares where they came from or precisely how old they are, they are abysmal aircraft to fly, other carriers like DL that keep older aircraft at least have the decency to maintain them properly and keep the cabins presentable for their passengers. And before you ask yes I have flown a USAir 762 on a CLT-PHL flight and hope I never set foot on one again.
Josh
- Banned
- #26
Evidently you must care because you posted it, not me.
- Status
