AA to Barcelona; JFK-FCO

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

You obviously love and will defend MIA until your last breath. About some of your European airline serving MIA:

1. SwissAir arrived at MIA in the late 1990's, it is one of its more profitable routes but was one of the last US cities added.

2. Alitalia served LAX since the 1984 Olympic Games, it stopped because of 9/11 and the grounding of its 747 fleet. AL is so short long haul planes they fly from MXP to NRT in a 767. Soon they are getting 6 777 which will upgrade their fleet.

3. Iberia flies to Miami for obvious reasons-SPANISH.

4. BA flew to many US cities before the Jet Age, Miami doesn't have the business market cities with Headquarters of Fortune 500 companies possess. No question that BA does well with its 2 747-400 to LHR. Virgin and AA do well on the route too.

5. KLM may have flown to Miami 40 years ago but since the 1970's only National served nonstop AMS from MIA. In the last flew years NW has served AMS nonstop in alliance with KLM. Very recently KLM MD-11's are operating the route but to say KLM has operated continuously to Miami from AMS for 40 years is WRONG.

No doubt MIA is served by many of the main European airlines but you should take a trip to LAX, many the airlines you talk about plus Qantas and Air New Zealand and all the Pacific flies there, now that really impresses me. A few TACA A320 or Copa 737-700 is nice but not the stuff that people outside of Miami give much credit too.

 

[MAH4546]

1. SwissAir arrived at MIA in the late 1990's, it is one of its more profitable routes but was one of the last US cities added.

All I said was that they added MIA before IAD, nothing more. Today MIA is Swiss' second biggest US station after JFK, after only three years.

2. Alitalia served LAX since the 1984 Olympic Games, it stopped because of 9/11 and the grounding of its 747 fleet. AL is so short long haul planes they fly from MXP to NRT in a 767. Soon they are getting 6 777 which will upgrade their fleet.

That makes no sense because LAX was not served by the 747. LAX was served with the MD-11, MIA was served by the 747 (now it is an MD-11). LAX was suspended because yields were weak, it's that simple. MIA-MXP is strong on traffic (MIA is Alitalia's second biggest US station after NYC) thanks to tourists, but strong on yields thanks to the fashion industry. Lot's of cargo on the route too. SFO-MXP was the flight suspended because of fleet issues. The new 777s have already been scheduled so far to JFK, Tehran, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires. And when more are delivered they are expected to go MIA, GRU, and KIX.

5. KLM may have flown to Miami 40 years ago but since the 1970's only National served nonstop AMS from MIA. In the last flew years NW has served AMS nonstop in alliance with KLM. Very recently KLM MD-11's are operating the route but to say KLM has operated continuously to Miami from AMS for 40 years is WRONG.

Did I ever say KLM has served MIA continuosuly? No. During the 1980s and 1990s, KLM had leisure partner Martinair Holland on the route. Today both carriers co-exist on the route.

No doubt MIA is served by many of the main European airlines but you should take a trip to LAX, many the airlines you talk about plus Qantas and Air New Zealand and all the Pacific flies there, now that really impresses me. A few TACA A320 or Copa 737-700 is nice but not the stuff that people outside of Miami give much credit too.

What's your point? The Pacific is LAX strong suit, Latin America is MIA's strong suit, and Europe is JFK's strong suit. I am not debating that. All I said was that MIA is a major trans-Atlantic gateway, which it very well is. It is not just another city to serve after LAX, ORD, JFK, etc. especially when you see European carriers with limited trans-Atlantic networks, such as Alitalia, chose MIA over IAD, SFO, and LAX.

 

[nyc6035]

Miaami,[BR][BR]Apparantly the source of this story/rumor is a filing AA put forth for the IATA slot conference held this week. The link is as follows:[BR][BR][A href=http://www.iata.org/sked/_files/AA_IATA%20S03%20Draft.pdf]http://www.iata.org/sked/_files/AA_IATA%20S03%20Draft.pdf[/A][BR][BR]I think what you can gather here is that AA is seriously contemplating serving these cities. That said, I don't think it's necessarily assured. Firstly they'd need to be successful in gaining the arrival and departure slots (which is what teh conference is for) and B) they'd ultimately need to add it to the schedule. [BR][BR]I recall a couple of years back TWA filed for a STL-FRA flight. They got the authority and the slots at FRA but ultimately they decided not to fly the route. [BR][BR]I guess I'd put this in the definate maybe category. I think it's fair to say you won't see more service than what's listed at the link though (with I assume the exception of certain South American routes which are missing for some reason).[BR][BR]

 

[Veritas]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/12/2002 7:56:51 AM FYI wrote:
[P]Some of the ones prior to my being able to fly international were some Pacific routes. We did, however, have several Polar routes from the West Coast in the 80's.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]A 1968 route map shows service to BOM, CMB, BKK, HKG, TPE, OKA, GUM, EBB, NBO and DAR.[/P]

 

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

When you say KLM served miami since a long time ago you imply it was served continuously. You are right about MartinAIR service ti Miami.

My observation about ALITALIA are not about what plane they used where but a reflection that if you take our 8 747's and still have the same number of 767's and MD-11's to serve your intercontinental routes you now have 8 less airplanes. Alitalia has 8 747's. If they had 30 planes and now have 22(these number are estimates) something has to give. Alitalia has given up a lot. Only once daily from MXP and FCO(each) to JFK instead of two from FCO. No more service to Australia, BKK, SIN or HKG. I have fond memories of Alitalia MD-11's at Kai Tek airport in HKG in the early 1990's. I have to believe that while Australia was probably a looser for Alitalia, HKG was not. BKK and SIN were stops on the way to Sydney and Melbourne. Alitalia is short big planes, MIA-MXP is a winner, but they flew to the west coast for 16 years, not all that time was it a looser

About my comments on LAX, ALL your observations about MIA's European service are based on giving MIA the most generous assumptions and giving the ther cities the least generous assumptions. ATL has less foreign airlines then MIA but DAL has much more service to Europe, probably more alone then all airlines(including AA)from MIA. USAIRWAYS in PHL has a restpectable size too. Have you been to IAD and seen UAL's? Its bigger then MIA's combined too: BA flies from their 3 times a day in the summer. MIA has a smaller encatchment area since there is nothing south of it, the cities north up the east coast are going to have more service to Europe, larger encatchments. MIA may have more foreign airlines but the hometown hib airlines service is lets face it small.

 

[AAquila]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 12:16:25 AM LGA Fleet Service wrote:


I worked the IB BCN trip many times and it was never a killer flight.Heavy on cargo, not passengers.

----------------
[/blockquote]

True; BCN passengers are mostly made up of US who would rather fly a US flag carrier. AMR knows this, having used old TWA res. records. So it makes sense to reactivate this route.

Many more similar routes to come, ( AMR opens TWA treasure chest ) after the so-called war is over.

Stay tuned.

 

[nyc6035]

IIRC, TWA service into BCN from JFK was typically a part of a 'triangle' route. The city changed from time to time but I recall it went something like JFK-LIS-BCN-JFK. I think at one time NCE was substituted for LIS and at other times it was perhaps MXP.

I guess the point being that TWA couldn't make a go of the route (with a 767-200) year-round without filling half the plane with folks bound for a destination other than BCN.

Perhaps AA's FF base will make a difference and perhaps they only plan to serve the city during the summer months. Time will tell.

 

[JFK777]

DAL flies from JFK & ATL to BCN nonstop in the summer but via MAD in the winter. This is not a new arrangement. AA in the past has built up service to the big northern European capitols, now I hope they will serve southern Europe from many of the cities they CDG & LHR.

 

[MAH4546]

Yes, ATL has more trans-Atlantic crossings, but less orgin & destination traffic than Miami.

PHL does not have as many trans-Atlantic crossings as MIA. USAirways only has seven daily flights to Europe from PHL. PHL is a small trans-Atlantic gateway, but it's proximity to EWR and IAD is the reason. In itself Philadelphia is a large market to Europe.

UAL out of IAD to Europe is shrinking. They are ending DUS and MXP this January, they join the ranks of ATH, ZRH, and MAD, among others (and partner bmi is suspending IAD-MAN for the winter; which I found surprising since they are sticking with ORD-MAN which has compietition from AA). Though it's still about ten daily crossings.

I am not doubting the hometown airline service is small. Only four daily crossings. And I am really dissapointed in that, because there is room for more from AA. However, I disagree that DFW and ORD will come first. In the 2000s, JFK and MIA will come first when it comes to major route expansions, IMO.

As for Alitalia, you are right. They have cut a lot in the past. Rio de Janeiro, Bangkok, Los Angeles, Beijing, Hong Kong, San Francisco...but through it all Miami has survived. All I'm saying is that MIA, at least to Alitalia, is not second tier, because through all these cuts, it has survived and continues to thrive.

And your right about the catchment area. MIA's domestic catchment area is pretty much just South Florida. It's not geographically positioned to be a megahub like Atlanta is, and it does not want to be. That's why most of our European services rely heavily on orgin & destination traffic unlike Atlanta and Dallas.

I am not sure if you know it or not, but MIA launched a $650K marketing program a few months ago that will take three years in attempts to lure a few (they are hoping for 3-5) of 26 international destinations. From the top of my head some of these include Cape Town, Lagos, and Dakar in Africa; Tel Aviv and Dubai in the Middle East; Dublin, Copenhagen, and Warsaw in Europe; and Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo in Asia. Again, the plan is not to get all 26 of these, but only about three to five. We'll see how it works out.

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 10:42:42 AM nyc6035 wrote:

I recall a couple of years back TWA filed for a STL-FRA flight. They got the authority and the slots at FRA but ultimately they decided not to fly the route.

----------------
[/blockquote]

True. The route was scheduled to begin in May of 2001 but after the bankruptcy/acquisition plans were scrapped. The STL-NRT service was a little different. We got the authority but never obtained the slots.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 12:51:24 PM AAquila wrote:


True; BCN passengers are mostly made up of US who would rather fly a US flag carrier. AMR knows this, having used old TWA res. records. So it makes sense to reactivate this route.

----------------
[/blockquote]

It's unlikely anyone worked more BCN flights than I did in the 25 years we flew there. My observation was that the pax were usually at least 50/50 US/Spanish. The Catalans aren't crazy about IB and generally preferred TWA, since they associated IB with the central government in Madrid. Even Pujols, the president of the autonomous region of Catalunya, always flew TWA to the US.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 7:56:51 AM FYI wrote:

Having worked for TWA for 24yrs as a F/A and having worked International off and on since 1985 I have personally worked flights to:

London
Paris
Rome
Madrid
Barcelona
Lisbon
Athens
Milan
Geneva
Zurich
Amsterdam
Oslo
Stockholm
Shannon
Bombay
Cairo
Tel Aviv
Frankfurt
Berlin
Munich
Brussels


Others that I didn't have the opportunity to fly but were available were:

Malaga
Nice
Moscow
Venice
Dublin


----------------
[/blockquote]

Let me add Stuttgart, Hamburg, Istanbul, Bahrain, Kuwait, Casablanca, Vienna (never Venice, except charters), Copenhagen, and Santa Maria (Azores).

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 1:22:53 PM nyc6035 wrote:

IIRC, TWA service into BCN from JFK was typically a part of a 'triangle' route. The city changed from time to time but I recall it went something like JFK-LIS-BCN-JFK. I think at one time NCE was substituted for LIS and at other times it was perhaps MXP.

----------------
[/blockquote]

The route was initially flown with the 707 from JFK-AGP (Malaga)-BCN and back the same way, but quickly changed to 747 service through MAD. For a while we did JFK-MAD-BCN 3 or 4 times weekly and JFK-MAD-AGP on the other days. Then AGP was served as a tag-on to LIS and BCN went daily, through MAD. After AGP was dropped BCN was served through MAD on the 747 in the summer and through LIS in the winter. I believe nonstops started in the late 80's, and NCE was served through BCN for only a couple of months before being scrapped. In recent years BCN kept nonstops about 3 days per week through the winter. It was served over the years by the 707, 747, L1011, 767, and even by the 757 (yes, nonstop). The galley packing on a full 757 with two services for a 9.5 hr flight was a sight to behold, and a bear to work.

MK

 

[FlyAA777]

Yup, the STL-FRA was scheduled to be up and running for the summer after...

I agree that STL-NRT will never, ever happen. Because of the ISL crew issues, I doubt we'll see any new intl routes. If that does ever work itself, and the company can make some money, I'd look for STL-CDG before anything else.

 

[nyc6035]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/12/2002 9:56:56 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

...and even by the 757 (yes, nonstop). The galley packing on a full 757 with two services for a 9.5 hr flight was a sight to behold, and a bear to work.

MK
----------------
[/blockquote]


Ah yes, the 757I. I remember flying as a passenger on this (Domestic). I seem to remember they converted 4 757s to the 16F configuration. IIRC to support the 'galley packing' they put in space for an extra cart (or two) in front of the 1a-c seats. The passenger seats had footrests and I believe the recline was improved some on this equipment vs the 22F standard config. It sure was an 'interesting' configuration. IIRC TWAs move to the 757 on the route was in response (obviously) of long-haul equipment shortages (I think just then they had started some of the 767-231 retirements) and as well it was a competitive response to CO who started service to LIS with 757s with 'Business-First', also a 16F configuration.

Regarding STL-FRA, I had forgotten that this was indeed just before the Bankruptcy. Regarding STL-NRT I've lost track of it, but I have to assume that since service hasn't started yet that AA lost the route authority...unless of course they petitioned the Transportation Department to allow them to move the authority to JFK or LAX to start service from there. Anyone know for sure?

I think it's fair to say you'll probably not see STL-NRT ever. With the whole fences thing (particularily with the Pilots) regarding 777 equipment, it wouldn't seem logical to ferry in a 777 into STL to support the service.