AA one of six airlines granted routes to Cuba

[FWAAA]

AA began flying once-a-week Saturday charter flights from LAX earlier this year, and reports are that the loads average about 30-50 passengers, so everyone on the 738 can spread out.

AA applied for a once-a-week flight from LAX, but AS went all-in with its application for twice daily service. Until normal tourism is allowed, AS will lose buckets of money flying its daily 737.

 

[AirwAr]

I give LAX-HAV about a year before AS cries uncle.

DFW, CLT, IAH, JFK, ATL and EWR are just as questionable as long as free travel isn't allowed.

 
Only thing I would say is that DFW & IAH could easily serve everyone west of the Mississippi....no need for LAX frequency.  For the most part, ATL provides connecting competition vs MIA, IAH, DFW.  Seems to me that AA, and the traveling public, would have been better served with a DFW or additional MIA frequency rather than CLT

 

[700UW]

CLT is a waste.  What can CLT do that an additional MIA flight wouldn't have done better?

CLT has numerous carribean flights including widebodies.

CLT has over 200 weekly flights to the region.

 

[commavia]

CLT has numerous carribean flights including widebodies.

CLT has over 200 weekly flights to the region.

 
Indeed it does - all to places where Americans are free to travel without meaningful restriction (including some islands that don't even require a passport).  Cuba is an entirely different story - travel is still restricted in various ways, and until that changes, tourism is going to be highly limited and VFR will make up a greater proportion of traffic than probably any other markets in the Caribbean except possibly Haiti and a couple of other limited exceptions (none of which, notably, have flights to CLT).  And beyond that, there is no domestic connectivity CLT provides to anywhere generating meaningful Cuba demand where MIA does not also offer the same connectivity.
 
In that context, I agree that CLT was, indeed, a total waste - as was Alaska's laughable daily flight from LAX.  It was also ridiculous that FLL ended up with the same amount of frequencies as MIA given that MIA, not FLL, is the preferred airport for Cuba O&D in South Florida (the region that constitutes >70% of all U.S. O&D to Cuba).
 
But all of this is hardly surprising, and entirely in keeping with the "spread the wealth" approach that the DOT essentially previewed with the original order instituting the whole proceeding.  It was obvious that the outcome the politicians and bureaucrats at the DOT would come up with would be entirely detached from the economic and competitive reality that would (will?) evolve in a truly free environment.  The DOT was never going to give AA all or even most of what it was asking for precisely because AA had and has such a natural advantage.  Put another way - if Cuba where truly a free market where airlines were free to come and go as they pleased and add or remove capacity at will, AA would (will?) - I suspect - end up with more than 25% of the flights to HAV.   

 

[700UW]

The flights were awarded based on population according to some articles.

But hey you know more than the airline executives and other airline employees.

And I believe CLT was second or third on AA's list.

 

[jcw]

Most people won't be happy until the CLT hub is closed so no use thinking any increase in flying from CLT is a good thing - it does fit the AA sucks narrative

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

  Seems to me that AA, and the traveling public, would have been better served with a DFW or additional MIA frequency rather than CLT

 
The DOT decision right now is for 8 U.S. airlines to serve HAV from 10 U.S. cities.
 
If some routes / frequencies are abandoned, what is preventing AA from applying for additional service to HAV from MIA?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

And I believe CLT was second or third on AA's list.

 
I believe that originally AA asked for 10 daily MIA-HAV flights.
The request for CLT and DFW was 1 daily HAV flight and 1 weekly from LAX and ORD.
The request for service to the 'secondary' Cuban cities was all from MIA.
 
That just about says it all about the awesomeness of the CLT-HAV / CLT-Cuba market.
 
(and no, I don't have anything personal against CLT)

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DFW, CLT, IAH, JFK, ATL and EWR are just as questionable as long as free travel isn't allowed.

 
What are the odds DL cries "seasonality"  (from JFK and/or ATL to HAV) as it did in the SEA-HND case?

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

That MIA-HAV is going to be a pig.

Pumpkin flight for sure.

 

[28L_or_10R?]

Regarding the CLT-HAV route, I believe that if it departs CLT late afternoon or evening it may attract connecting pax from Europe, UK and Canada. They don't have the travel restrictions like US citizens and they've been traveling there for years. Europeans and Canadians love them some Cuba vacations. If these flights depart in the morning and with US citizen travel restrictions in place it may end up being a dud. Free travel without the bureaucratic restrictions and CLT should do well, regardless of time. That's the key.

 

[eolesen]

Regarding the CLT-HAV route, I believe that if it departs CLT late afternoon or evening it may attract connecting pax from Europe, UK and Canada. They don't have the travel restrictions like US citizens and they've been traveling there for years. Europeans and Canadians love them some Cuba vacations. If these flights depart in the morning and with US citizen travel restrictions in place it may end up being a dud. Free travel without the bureaucratic restrictions and CLT should do well, regardless of time. That's the key.

That's a fair point I hadn't considered, but even there I don't see non-US citizen traffic being enough to justify a daily flight from any of the non-Florida markets.

 

[28L_or_10R?]

That's a fair point I hadn't considered, but even there I don't see non-US citizen traffic being enough to justify a daily flight from any of the non-Florida markets.

We'll have to see. Once the travel restrictions are lifted these routes will all do just fine, just my opinion. I will reiterate: restrictions stay status quo and flights scheduled to leave CLT in the morning and this route will fall flat on its face. They'll use a E170 as a placeholder.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Regarding the CLT-HAV route, I believe that if it departs CLT late afternoon or evening it may attract connecting pax from Europe, UK and Canada.

 
I don't know about the prices to HAV from Europe, but I just did a quick search for fares from Canada on Air Transat.
 
YYZ-HAV for January 2017 from aprox. $555 CAD ($425 USD at today's rates). 
YYZ-HOG for September 2016 from approx. $465 CAD ($360 USD at today's rates).
To be more accurate those fates from YYZ included $235 in taxes and fees.
 
AC is more expensive, YYZ-HAV for Septermber $725 CAD (fare $523 CAD fare the rest in taxes and fees).
 
So AA might have to price very competitively to attract connecting Canadian passengers .......

 

[FWAAA]

We'll have to see. Once the travel restrictions are lifted these routes will all do just fine, just my opinion. I will reiterate: restrictions stay status quo and flights scheduled to leave CLT in the morning and this route will fall flat on its face. They'll use a E170 as a placeholder.

AA committed to flying CLT-HAV with an A319, and the other airlines would object and petition to strip the CLT frequency from AA if it tried to fly an RJ in its place.

DOT denied Silver any HAV routes because, in part, it planned to use 34-seat SAABs, and DOT said "not enough capacity" for such important, limited frequency routes.

I agree with you on the restrictions. As long as the current tourism restrictions remain in place, only the Florida flights have a chance at viability. Once Americans are free to book beach vacations, then flights from any big eastern/southern hub will be fine.