I doubt you will ever see 2 MIA-LHR''s year round. It is a slot that is more profitable during the summer from a northern hub. We did fly MIA-LGW for a while and that could be the possibility you are looking for as a year round flight. I would just like to see another European destination or two from MIA. Just dreaming as I''m sure we won''t see any expansion for a while.
Route/Equip changes; including a new 777 market
- Thread starter MAH4546
- Start date
Service from Miami to Europe seems to be less then it should be. AMS, ZRH, FRA & MXP are served by the airlines from those countries. AA should try serving Dublin or Manchester since no one else does, a 763 should do quite nicely.
With the 767 change over nearly complete. Next year as the war is more of a memory, we will see a recovery begining. Then AA will be able to use its new 2 class asset.
Then JFK will get the BCN among others. And maybe just maybe then IMA, FRA return could happen.
Then JFK will get the BCN among others. And maybe just maybe then IMA, FRA return could happen.
Plus parts of the new MIA terminal will be open by next year. I believe the concourse D expansion is scheduled to open in the next couple of months. AA will also be moving all flights from the high E gates (remote terminal E) to terminal A.
- Thread Starter
- #20
----------------
On 4/29/2003 7:29:59 AM FA Mikey wrote:
With the 767 change over nearly complete. Next year as the war is more of a memory, we will see a recovery begining. Then AA will be able to use its new 2 class asset.
Then JFK will get the BCN among others. And maybe just maybe then IMA, FRA return could happen.
----------------
On 4/29/2003 7:29:59 AM FA Mikey wrote:
With the 767 change over nearly complete. Next year as the war is more of a memory, we will see a recovery begining. Then AA will be able to use its new 2 class asset.
Then JFK will get the BCN among others. And maybe just maybe then IMA, FRA return could happen.
----------------
I sure hope so. Things are tough right now, but I feel things will get a whole lot better in terms of passenger growth by the summer of 2003. Of course, I don''t think profits will come that soon, but the losses should, hopefully shrink. A little wishlist I have for MIA:
In LatAm make Asuncion, Belo Horizonte, and Montevideo all non-stop. They are big markets, and can support the traffic, IMO. ASU daily, MVD 5x a week, and CNF 3x a week. Though I understand that the 5th freedom rights on GRU-ASU and EZE-MVD maybe too lucrative to give up, there are no traffic rights on GRU-CNF, and we are talking about a city with 4M+ people here. Start-up Valencia once Veneuzela is healthy again (they were supposed to start VLN last November). Service to Iquitos, Peru, Manaus, Brazil, and Liberia, Costa Rica show a lot of potential with the rise in Eco-Tourism. Those three cities are at the centre of it.
On the domestic front, it is about time to link up Miami with Minneapolis, Kansas City, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh (hey, they finally gave us Charlotte and Las Vegas last winter; it could happen). Add another west-coast destiantion by bringing back Seattle or San Jose. Word is that Alaska Airlines is going double daily to MIA this winter. Loads on thier daily MIA-SEA flight are not only averaging 80%+, but the yields are amazing. I see no reason why AA cannot do it with a 738. I would like to see them retry Austin, and why not connect Miami (and O''Hare for that matter) with the much more business friendly Houston Hobby? Also, in the Northeast, a daily 738 each to Islip and Providence should have no problem filling up (though yield is another thing). Newburgh, NY could fill up on O&D alone (Southeast does it from FLL). And I do not know exactly what the restrictions are at White Plains airport, but if AA could send a 738 on MIA-HPN (though I don''t think HPN allows 738s), that would be one hell of a money making machine.
In Canada, summer service to Vancouver and service to Ottawa could do fine. And winter service to Quebec City with 738s...no problem filling those up at all! In fact, the only mainline service between the US and YQB are Air Canada and Air Transaat''s flights between FLL and YQB. Again though, major issue with yield, especially YQB.
In Europe, it is about time they add Frankfurt. Barcelona and/or Manchester from MIA could do very well, especially with high-density two-class aircraft. Brussels could do well too. With the new SNBA codeshare signed today, I don''t think this would be to far-fetched an idea. A summer service to Rome could do fine too, but yields would suck. Miami-Italy is a large market both ways, but Milan is where the money is.
As for Eagle growth, it is clear Eagle has been doing nothing but cutting at MIA lately, but the new terminal will have Eagle RJ gates, so they obviously are planning something. I am thinking along the lines of two dailies each to Greensboro, Norfolk, Birmingham, Indianapolis, and Colombus.
On the dream list side, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, and Cape Town. None of those three are gonig to happen in this lifetime, but it is nice to dream. At least El Al is coming year-round to MIA starting 26 October (twice a week 777-200).
It is all just a wish list and takes little other factors into account. Obviously some of these ideas are just not viable. Though I do think that of all of AA''s hubs, MIA is in for the most expansion and growth in the next 5-7 years. Enough rambling though, just my thoughts.
In quickly reading the post above, I was interested to see Islip mentioned as a potential destination from Miami. Although I would welcome a daily r/t to Miami, I don't think we'll ever see it. The yields would be unbelievably low, as DLX and WN fight for the low end of the market (although DLX is gone by June I think). Also, Islip is entirely an Eagle station now, as AA wimped out on ISP-ORD about 3 years ago (shame since I would have used that every week). The current ISP-BOS is down to 3 a day, so I am forced to drive to LGA for BOS.
If, however, the economics of the 738 would support ISP-MIA, perhaps a number of passengers would connect for the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just a thought.......
If, however, the economics of the 738 would support ISP-MIA, perhaps a number of passengers would connect for the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just a thought.......
----------------
if AA''s load factor had been above 93% when MRTC was introduced, then it would have meant turning people away.
----------------
Not all of our flights operate at the same load factor. While most fall somewhere between 60 and 80 percent, many operate at 100 percent. When you take two rows of seats off of a full airplane, those passengers that you would have carried typically end up flying on another airline. Think Las Vegas - always full, lots of carriers operating the routes. if AA''s load factor had been above 93% when MRTC was introduced, then it would have meant turning people away.
----------------
----------------
it is possible to compute how much fuel has been saved by NOT flying all those empty seats
----------------
...and all of those pesky paying passengers that would have filled them!it is possible to compute how much fuel has been saved by NOT flying all those empty seats
----------------
----------------
AA gladly hands a voucher to a volunteer (probably on an L fare) to accomodate the full Y pax. Accordingly, MRTC doesn''t even cost AA revenue when flights are full, contrary to popular belief.
----------------
But wouldn''t we have flown more revenue on that flight if we could have accomodated BOTH passengers? How much more revenue could we have accomodated if we had 10 extra seats? We cannot accomodate as many junk-fare-paying passengers as we used to and, in this economy, those are the passengers that you need most. We certainly aren''t getting the extra money by charging a premium over SWA''s fares!AA gladly hands a voucher to a volunteer (probably on an L fare) to accomodate the full Y pax. Accordingly, MRTC doesn''t even cost AA revenue when flights are full, contrary to popular belief.
----------------
----------------
On 4/29/2003 5:22:43 PM Connected1 wrote:
Not all of our flights operate at the same load factor. While most fall somewhere between 60 and 80 percent, many operate at 100 percent.
But wouldn''t we have flown more revenue on that flight if we could have accomodated BOTH passengers? How much more revenue could we have accomodated if we had 10 extra seats? We cannot accomodate as many junk-fare-paying passengers as we used to and, in this economy, those are the passengers that you need most. We certainly aren''t getting the extra money by charging a premium over SWA''s fares!
----------------
Well, in the first quarter, AA mainline flew 12.4 Billion seats miles empty or with free pax, and 27.8 Billion Revenue seat miles. The load factor was a stunning 69.1%.On 4/29/2003 5:22:43 PM Connected1 wrote:
Not all of our flights operate at the same load factor. While most fall somewhere between 60 and 80 percent, many operate at 100 percent.
But wouldn''t we have flown more revenue on that flight if we could have accomodated BOTH passengers? How much more revenue could we have accomodated if we had 10 extra seats? We cannot accomodate as many junk-fare-paying passengers as we used to and, in this economy, those are the passengers that you need most. We certainly aren''t getting the extra money by charging a premium over SWA''s fares!
----------------
On average, not that many planes fly at 100%, and if they routinely do, you could accomodate those last several junk fare pax by right-sizing the equipment on that route (fly a 757 instead of a 738, fly an MD-80 instead of an F-100 or fly a 738 instead of the MD-80). Or add a frequency.
Fact remains that, on average, middle seats aren''t filled. Until more of them they are filled on a regular basis, there''s certainly no need to carry around any more empty seats on the off-chance of picking up a couple hundred from Ma and Pa Kettle on an L or N fare.
One interesting tidbit: UAL''s 2002 Revenue per passenger mile was 10.8 cents. AA''s was 11.86 cents.
UAL''s Revenue per available seat mile was 9.4 cents, while AA''s RASM was 8.39 cents. UAL''s LF was 73.5% while AA''s was 70.7%.
Which airline had better numbers? My money''s on AA, which squeezed a penny per mile more out of its pax than UA. Others will disagree. Their Mileage Varies.
DL, NW, CO, and US have similar numbers (and are the most similar competitors in terms of routes, service, etc.) So for now, the jury is still out on whether MRTC or E+ helps or hinders revenue.
Looks like we''ll have to agree to disagree on the economic impact of MRTC. I think it''s a plus that, if given some time, will help AA''s yield in the long term. Besides, full planes don''t always equal profitable. Much better to fly higher yield traffic (even if some junk fares are turned away) if it is profitable traffic (even with empty seats).
He who fills all the seats doesn''t always win.
- Thread Starter
- #24
----------------
On 4/29/2003 5:03:49 PM Art at ISP wrote:
In quickly reading the post above, I was interested to see Islip mentioned as a potential destination from Miami. Although I would welcome a daily r/t to Miami, I don''t think we''ll ever see it. The yields would be unbelievably low, as DLX and WN fight for the low end of the market (although DLX is gone by June I think). Also, Islip is entirely an Eagle station now, as AA wimped out on ISP-ORD about 3 years ago (shame since I would have used that every week). The current ISP-BOS is down to 3 a day, so I am forced to drive to LGA for BOS.
If, however, the economics of the 738 would support ISP-MIA, perhaps a number of passengers would connect for the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just a thought.......
----------------
On 4/29/2003 5:03:49 PM Art at ISP wrote:
In quickly reading the post above, I was interested to see Islip mentioned as a potential destination from Miami. Although I would welcome a daily r/t to Miami, I don''t think we''ll ever see it. The yields would be unbelievably low, as DLX and WN fight for the low end of the market (although DLX is gone by June I think). Also, Islip is entirely an Eagle station now, as AA wimped out on ISP-ORD about 3 years ago (shame since I would have used that every week). The current ISP-BOS is down to 3 a day, so I am forced to drive to LGA for BOS.
If, however, the economics of the 738 would support ISP-MIA, perhaps a number of passengers would connect for the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just a thought.......
----------------
For the reasons you mentioned, I agree we likely will not see it. WN does FLL-ISP 3 or 4x a day, and DLX 2x a day (though those will be ending soon; but FLL is the sole destination from Islip). They would have zero problem filling it up, though, on O&D. I don''t think they would have much trouble filling up F on a 738 either. There is a healthy amount of high-yielders on the route, AA just needs to convince Long Islanders to fly out of Islip instead of JFK. It is the same with SWF and HPN. The Miami area has so many connections, affiliations, and relations with the New York City area it is not even funny. FLL has SWF and ISP service, but MIA has neither. For now, that will likely remain the case. Pan Am II did fly MIA-ISP back in the late 90s, though.
----------------
On 4/29/2003 5:22:43 PM Connected1 wrote:
Not all of our flights operate at the same load factor. While most fall somewhere between 60 and 80 percent, many operate at 100 percent.
----------------
On 4/29/2003 5:22:43 PM Connected1 wrote:
Not all of our flights operate at the same load factor. While most fall somewhere between 60 and 80 percent, many operate at 100 percent.
----------------
Disagree. Very few flights operate at 100% without any revenue standby being accommodated. Some markets do operate at 100% on certain days, but that's due in part to revenue standby filling up the remaining seats. Think 5pm departures on ORD-LGA, LGA-ORD, DCA-ORD, etc...
Looking at 4Q02 data, only 3% of all flights operated at a 100% revenue load factor. 5% operated at 99% or higher. Those percentages include revenue standby passengers.
So, do you plan your airline around that 5% of flights, or around the 95% of flights which operate at lower load factors? I'd plan for what I'm more likely to see.
Given that the 100% LF flights are more predictable than not, I'd think it is easier to simply trade off some of the lower revenue and leave seats available for a last-minute sale, especially if you know that there will be revenue standby to soak up any unsold seats at departure time.
MRTC is more important to me on the 5% of flights which are full, since a middle seat with more legroom is better than a window seat with less legroom. I suspect there are other people who agree with that.
- Thread Starter
- #27
----------------
On 5/1/2003 10:01:32 AM MiAAmi wrote:
I could see the CRJ700 flying to CMH and IND like we had a few years ago.
----------------
On 5/1/2003 10:01:32 AM MiAAmi wrote:
I could see the CRJ700 flying to CMH and IND like we had a few years ago.
----------------
Definitley could see it too. From what I hear, the original AE MIA-IND/CMH services did very, very well. The problem was that there were payload restrictions, especially since Miami-bound passengers were taking a lot of luggage. Though that was before the longer ranger CR7. Currently, ATA offers daily FLL-IND service on a 757-300 and Delta Connection last week inagurated 2x daily FLL-CMH service.
JS
Veteran
----------------
On 4/29/2003 6
39 PM FWAAA wrote:
On average, not that many planes fly at 100%, and if they routinely do, you could accomodate those last several junk fare pax by right-sizing the equipment on that route (fly a 757 instead of a 738, fly an MD-80 instead of an F-100 or fly a 738 instead of the MD-80). Or add a frequency.
----------------
On 4/29/2003 6
39 PM FWAAA wrote: On average, not that many planes fly at 100%, and if they routinely do, you could accomodate those last several junk fare pax by right-sizing the equipment on that route (fly a 757 instead of a 738, fly an MD-80 instead of an F-100 or fly a 738 instead of the MD-80). Or add a frequency.
----------------
That''s already been done. Peak time is when the system is running full speed.
CMH is a RJ Maint. station. I'm really suprised that we don't already have MIA-CMH service. If they ever plan to have RJ's in MIA you can bet that CMH will be one of the routes. DL has regional jets from CMH to FLL, RSW, MCO and TPA. This might be why we don't already have service. I would think that the connecting traffic in MIA would do well for CMH.
