UA wants MIA-LHR

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

Since SCL and EZE are close together and EZE is slightly closer to Europe it would have more service since EZE can feed,to some extent, from SCL. You can't feed SCL from another big city. Rio and Sao Paulo are the same. SAO PAULO is the business center of Brazil and the most important city in South America, it would make sense for it to have the most service. Some service to Rio first stop in GRU, BA for example. Some cutbacks are also because of the STAR Alliance, Varig and Lufthansa have combined some service. Varig offers daily service from Rio to FRA per the Lufthansa timetable until 10/27/02. GRU-FRA is once daily by each airline, DOUBLE DAILY. Iberia serves most Lat Am cities nonstop, now that the A340 is small enough and has the capacity to takeoff from Bogota and such physically challenged airports. Last BA time table I saw had CCS/ BOG 3 day a week, GRU daily, and EZE 6 days a week, they stopped SCL because Lan Chile, a One world airline, feeds the passengers to BA. CCS has definitely had a rebirth, but at some point there will be cutbacks. The people that travel to Europe from Lat AM will always have money to do it, no matter what macroeconomic issues may exist in prosperous Ecuador at the momemt. Ecudaor's Joe Sixpacks may have more money hen they did tradionally but they still don't travek internationally.

 

[AAG2000]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 5:24:28 PM FA Mikey wrote:

A day light trip to Europe. What a waste of a day. Its a wasted business day. Its a wasted vaction day.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Daylight flights to Europe aren't necessarily a waste time---don't forget that not all passengers to Europe are staying in Europe. Many flights from Europe to Southeast Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world leave in the evening, making for difficult connections from morning arrivals from North America. A relatively little-known fact is that British Airways offers the quickest route from New York to Bangkok, on the morning flight from JFK connecting at LHR to the overnight to BKK---a very pleasant way to go. United can offer similar connections with its Star Alliance partners, Thai and Singapore.

Furthermore, despite what you or I may think, there are travelers to Europe---including some high-yield passengers---who prefer the daylight flight. For business travelers who have a morning meeting the next day, an evening arrival allows for a regular night's sleep. And, from my personal experience working at a travel agency many years ago, many older passengers don't like overnight flights. It was not uncommon to see wealthy retirees bound for other cities in Europe---say, to board a cruise in Rome---flying to London just to get the daytime flight, then spending a night at the Heathrow Hilton and continuing on the next morning.

 

[JFK777]

AA2000,

Most day flights to LHR are from the midwest or the northeast, Miami is almost 2 hours more flying time to LHR then JFK. Most cities with day flights have 4 airlines competing to LHR, MIA doesn't today. BOS, IAD, JFK and ORD are cities with many multinational firms headquartered in them and MIA doesn't. Miami is the LATIN AMERICAN headquarters of many firms with HQ in some of the above named cities. There is a big difference being at the Colgate-Palmolive headquarter on Park Ave. in New York and the LAT AM HQ, really a divional office, in Coral Gables or Miami. Miami has sadly lost many of its HQ with Southeast Bank, Eastern and National Airlines being sold or going Bankrupt. Even the HQ of PAN AM were on Park AVE above Grand Central Station, not in Miami as myth has made popular. If Miami had so many passenegers going to the Asia Pacific there would be service there by JAL, SIA , Cathay Pacific or some airline of Pacific influence. Miami, as far as the big US international airport is small( even if it is the biggest to Latin AMerica). LAX, JFK, and SFO are much more important because they are multidirectional international airport. JFK, SFO, and LAX all have flights, in big numbers to Asia, Europe and South America( Australia is huge out of LAX). MIA has 4 flights to London, a few to CDG, MXP, MAD, ZRH , FRA, AMS, none to ASia(ZILCH, NADA, ZERO) and many to Latin America but then one thing applies to Latin America, who goes there who really doesn't have to? Answer is: not many people.

 

[MAH4546]

You are sadly misinformed when it comes to Miami's relations to the rest of the world. Asian relations are very minimal, but Miami's connections with Europe are huge. And five dailies to London is the same as San Francisco, not to mention the fact that capacity-wise, Miami has more seats because SFO has 3x 772 and 2x 744, as opposed to 3x 744/2x 772 at MIA. SFO has ONE flight to Latin America, Mexico aside, and that is a daily TACA to SAL. JFK does not even Rio de Janeiro, Santiago de Chile, Quito, or Caracas, just to name a few. MIA is one of the biggest international airports in the country, European services are excellent (SFO has lost Alitalia and Swiss within two months of each other; LAX lost Alitalia last year) as well.

 

[MAH4546]

You are sadly misinformed when it comes to Miami's relations to the rest of the world. Asian relations are very minimal, but Miami's connections with Europe are huge. And five dailies to London is the same as San Francisco, not to mention the fact that capacity-wise, Miami has more seats because SFO has 3x 772 and 2x 744, as opposed to 3x 744/2x 772 at MIA. SFO has ONE flight to Latin America, Mexico aside, and that is a daily TACA to SAL. JFK does not even Rio de Janeiro, Santiago de Chile, Quito, or Caracas, just to name a few. MIA is one of the biggest international airports in the country, European services are excellent (SFO has lost Alitalia and Swiss within two months of each other; LAX lost Alitalia and Egyptair last year) as well.

Miami's trans-Atlantic frequencies for winter 2002 are 4x daily to Heathrow, 3x daily to Madrid, 17x a week to Paris, 12x a week to Amsterdam, daily to Milan, Zurich, Frankfurt, Gatwick, 2x weekly to Tel Aviv, and weekly to Dusseldorf.

And why are you comparing Miami's trans-Atlantic network to LA and NYC, cities that have populations of 16,5M and 20,5M, respectfully. Miami is at just under 4,0M (+ another million in Palm Beach). Compare Miami to cities it's own size, such as:

Houston: Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, British Airways, Continental to FRA, AMS, LGW, CDG

Dallas: American, British Airways, Lufthansa to FRA, LGW, CDG, ZRH

Seattle: British Airways, SAS, Northwest and Aeroflot to LHR, CPH, AMS, SVO

Phoenix: British Airways, Lufthansa to FRA, LGW (soon LHR)

Miami: Alitalia, Iberia, American, British Airways, Virgin, LTU, Lufthansa, KLM, Swiss, Air France, Martinair, El Al to MXP, MAD, LHR, LGW, DUS, FRA, AMS, ZRH, CDG, TLV (and if all goes well with Star Alliance plans; we will have MUC, CPH, and VIE; plus VG Air is planning on launching MIA-BRU in December if they survive that long; as yes, El Al's MIA service is now on thier OWN aircraft, 777s and 744s).

Just for fun though, here is LA, a city four times the size:

LAX: Air France, United, AirNZ, Air Tahiti Nui, Swiss, Aer Lingus, KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, Virgin, El Al to CDG, LHR, ZRH, SNN, DUB, AMS, TLV, and FRA (that is less than MIA, BTW)

And SFO, roughly 75% more the size of Miami:

SFO: Air France, United, KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, Virgin to CDG, AMS, LHR, FRA, MUC.

Is MIA still looking that bad to you?

Now don't go on that Asian stuff, because MIA is the furthest major US city from Asia, and there is nothing they can do about it. We are not in position to be an Asian hub, we are to be a Latin and European hub, which Miami IS. Miami has it's niche, that is Latin America. It fills up planes, it makes a profit. They are not trying to be JFK or LAX, but the fact remains that Miami, on a global scale, is one of the most important cities in the United States, and it's ties to Latin America, Europe, and Africa are amongst the strongest of US cities. Asia and Oceania ties are weak, but improving.

 

[MAH4546]

I see where your coming from, but your observations comparing MIA and SFO Europe traffic are way off. There is a reason that Alitalia and Swissair both ended SFO last fall while keeping MIA. MIA yield is much better to Europe than SFO, with the exception of London. Alitalia's MIA-MXP flights are big moneymakers thanks to the fashion industry, and Swiss' MIA-ZRH route is thier #1 trans-Atlantic route in terms of yield out of ZRH (JFK-GVA is #1 overall). Check the loads for first and business on Swiss' MIA flights. They never go out with an empty seat, and I am not exagerating. Once again, if SFO really is such a higher yielding and more profitable destination than MIA, why are Alitalia and Swiss no longer there while remaining popular and daily in Miami (and why did BA downgrade one of their SFO services to a 772 recently, while MIA keeps double 744s)? The nature of Miami's Europe routes are mixed. Miami-Madrid and Miami-London are big business routes; Miami-Milan has a good mix because of the fashion industry. Miami-Frankfurt and Dusseldorf are mainly tourist. Miami-Paris is also mainly tourist and VFR, but because Miami's large French population is incrediblly wealthy (and I mean very, very, very rich), it is a big moneymaker. Miami-Amsterdam has a good mix, because KLM takes a lot of business traffic on the route, while Martinair is pure tourist traffic. Miami-Tel Aviv has all of it, VFR, business, and tourist. Miami-Zurich has a large share of business passengers connecting to other cities because of the airline's excellent reputation for service, which remains even in thier new incarnation. And keep in mind that the demographic of European tourist that Miami attracts is not the demographic that Orlando and Los Angeles attract (there is a reason Swiss, Iberia, SAS, and Alitalia are among many European carriers to pull out of LAX in the 90s). Miami attracts a very wealthy demographic of European tourists that make it a goldmine for trans-Atlantic services. Compared to pre-9.11 levels, Miami has only 4 less weekly trans-Atlantic flights. That's something no other major US trans-Atlantic gateway can claim.

 

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

Your observations about Miami and SFO having comparable European service are accurate, but MIA doesn't have 1 flight to Asia( today there planes capable of flying that far). Why would MIA be an Asian HUB? Geographically that would never make sense. My post was about Miami lacking balance in international service. Northern California's international service is mostly throw the SFO airport. As I previously said Miami has lost many of the Headquarters of Fortune 500 companies. San Francisco and San Jose are Silicon Valley, which even today under many less dot.coms, is still a very important and rich part of the the USA. WE in Florida don't have comparable industry to buy many tickets on international flights. Miami's european traffic is mostly tourism, SFO is more of a balance. SFO's London service is also all to Heathrow, showing a higher yield passenger goes to California then to florida. While AA makes a fortune, even post 9/11 at MIA, UA has 2 large California Pacific Hubs with symetric service to Asia and Europe. AA has 4 flights to Europe ( 2 LHr and 1 each Mad and CDG) and 200 or so domestic, Caribean, and Latin America, Not symetric international service. Remember Braniff, they didn't care to much back in Dallas about service to South America from MIA, they wanted their Orange 747 to fly to London, that as their standard of international service.

 

[AAG2000]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 5:22:49 PM MAH4546 wrote:

You are sadly misinformed when it comes to Miami's relations to the rest of the world.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Jeez Louise, guys, lighten up! This is starting to sound like those Yahoo! boards where whiny teenagers snap at each other. Let's lose the condescending tone and be adults here, ok?

That said, I didn't say anything about any nonstop or even direct service to Asia from Miami, which may or may not be viable. All I said was that morning service to Europe opens up different connecting possibilities, including not only Asia but also Africa, India, and the Middle East.

I wasn't born yesterday---I know very well that Miami has a heck of a lot more Latinos than Asians, and that it's hardly New York when it comes to demand for transatlantic service. I was just trying to offer a different perspective and keep a lively discussion going. Show a little respect for the intelligence of your fellow members here.

 

[MrMarky]

In terms of SFO, please keep in mind that the events of 9/11 combined with the economic downturn hit SFO especially hard. Their dropoff in traffic exceeded any place else. They dropped from the 5th busiest to the 12th busiest overnight.

Having said that, you should keep in mind that prior to 9/11 AA had started nonstop 777 service from SJC to both Paris and Taipei. Both were cut following 9/11 but will hopefully be restored when things pick up. AA still flies SJC-NRT 777 service.

SJC and OAK would both have to be considered part of SFO in terms of looking at bay area international service. Also, OAK has seasonal summer service every year on MartinAir nonstop OAK-AMS.

Last I knew, SFO also had Aeroflot, although I don't know what city they flew to. San Francisco has had a very large Russian population for 100 years.

 

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

California, having 2 large international airport, is going to cause certain airline with marginal traffic flying to one or both to cut service at times like ours. About BA 744 vs 777's: BA service to Miami for most of the 1990's was 2 747, 1 from LGW and 1 from LHR; SFO was always 2 747 or 777 from LHR and from Terminal 4, Miami is from Terminal 3. Miami has the distinction of having the only BA service from terminal 3( not a good sign), 2 or 3 years ago when Eddington became BA CEO he went double daily from LHR to MIA. If capacity is so short at LHR why is BA now serving San Diego, Phoenix and DEN from T4 at LHR instead of LGW? Then about SFO going from 744 to 777, BA has no more 744 on order they do have more777 ordered, they have said their future long haul airplane is the 777 because they want to serve a premuim mix with Club World and First Class with less coach class. BA has not ordered A380. The switch to 777 for SFO is part of the policy of going to a smaller airplane not a statement from BA about less faith in SFO.

SFO, with LAX about 400 miles to the south, has to compete with LAX for European service. SAS served LAX for many years from before the jet age until the mid 1990's, then they stopped and are going to SFO for UA. SWISS, Swissair served both LAX and SFO, cut back to LAX only since they are just getting the airline going again with the resources they have, less then Swissair had. For most European airlines LAX makes more sense then SFO and will make LAX their first California destination and then they go north to SFO. Only BA has gone south to San Diego, since Linbergh field is physically challenged by a short runway( no service to ASia) and mountains, I wonder how much less then full payload they have to takeoff with? SFO is a great airport, with a rich history and a great mix of airlines, I just have a soft spot in my heart for those great Asian airlines, MIA needs JAL, Singapore or Cathay.

 

[MAH4546]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 9:17:59 AM JFK777 wrote:

MAH4546,

California, having 2 large international airport, is going to cause certain airline with marginal traffic flying to one or both to cut service at times like ours. About BA 744 vs 777's: BA service to Miami for most of the 1990's was 2 747, 1 from LGW and 1 from LHR; SFO was always 2 747 or 777 from LHR and from Terminal 4, Miami is from Terminal 3. Miami has the distinction of having the only BA service from terminal 3( not a good sign), 2 or 3 years ago when Eddington became BA CEO he went double daily from LHR to MIA. If capacity is so short at LHR why is BA now serving San Diego, Phoenix and DEN from T4 at LHR instead of LGW? Then about SFO going from 744 to 777, BA has no more 744 on order they do have more777 ordered, they have said their future long haul airplane is the 777 because they want to serve a premuim mix with Club World and First Class with less coach class. BA has not ordered A380. The switch to 777 for SFO is part of the policy of going to a smaller airplane not a statement from BA about less faith in SFO.

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

British Airways' profitable MIA-LHR route is almost big with O&D. It is not like the -SAN, -DEN, and -PHX flights in which many passengers connect. People do not do much connecting with BA at LHR. As you might know, BA has three congfigs for thier aircraft. The medium-density aircraft are used on the majority of thier LGW flights, as well as the soon-to-be LHR-DEN/PHX/SAN flights*. Tampa and Orlando get high-density aircraft without first class. The LHR routes, except Baltimore and Detroit, get the 4-class low-density aircraft, including MIA. Reserved for thier highest-yielding routes, MIA was one of the first city's to recieve it, even though it is now becoming more and more common on LHR long-hauls (in addition to the ones mentioned; SYD,
MEL, SIN, BKK, NRT, JNB, and CPT).

As for MIA-Asia, it will take time. Look at Boston and Philadelphia, much larger markets, not to mention closer to Asia, with no Asian carriers or service. MIA is trying to attract an Asian carrier. JAL would be most logical, but Korean Air has shown the most intrest. Singapore Airlines, if they ever came to MIA, would do it via Europe (CDG or MAD probably).

*The changes may not be happening because today the US rejected a deal from the UK for more relaxed BII restrictions. The reason they are moving these flights to LHR is because LHR offers more connections and these flights are big with connections.

 

[UA777DEN]

People do not do much connecting with BA at LHR

Only 20% of passengers who fly to LHR are going to London. The remaining 80% are connections. I have no idea why you think people do not do much connecting in LHR because that's practically all it is.

Also, I wouldn't worry much about the DEN/PHX/SAN flights not moving to LHR. Most are saying that the DEN/PHX/SAN move to LHR is something they were able to agree upon between. A sort of mini-deal outside of the Open Skies agreement that the UK is proposing.

On a side note, the DEN flight is being upgraded to a 744 next year.

Regards

 

[MAH4546]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 8:30:17 PM UA777DEN wrote:

People do not do much connecting with BA at LHR

Only 20% of passengers who fly to LHR are going to London. The remaining 80% are connections. I have no idea why you think people do not do "much" connecting in LHR because that's practically all it is.

Also, I wouldn't worry much about the DEN/PHX/SAN flights not moving to LHR. Most are saying that the DEN/PHX/SAN move to LHR is something they were able to agree upon between. A sort of mini-deal outside of the Open Skies agreement that the UK is proposing.

On a side note, the DEN flight is being upgraded to a 744 next year.

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

I was referring to BA's MIA-LHR service, a very O&D rich route. As for DEN, it is being upgraded for only about three months, to a medium-density 744 (lots of extra coach seats).

 

[JFK777]

MAH4546,

MIA would offer rich connections all over the Caribean and Northern Latin America for an Asian airline. Look at SWISS, by serving Miami they pickmup passengers from all over the region. Your previous observation about MIA being a goldmine for SWISS has a large part to do with connections.

BOS & PHL may be larger but they are also close to 2 other cities served by all the previous Asian airlines. Washington DC and New York. Philadelphia is well served to Asia out of Newark, CAL flies to both HKG(nonstop) and NRT(nonstop and connections on NWA) & SIA flies via AMS 4x weekly. IAD has been served by ANA since 1986. JFK is the biggest destination for these Asian airlines, JFK has 5 airlines with service to NRT( ANA, JAL, AA, UA, & Northworst)plus Cathay, SIA and every other airline from a country with a 747. BOS needs a flight to NRT, but given its geographc position it has to fly on O&D tarffic only, that right now seems a long shot.

 

[iflyual]

Given the flight time from the west coast to continental Europe and the turnaround time needed to clean and cater widebody aircraft, are two planes needed to do once a day service on these routes? If two planes are needed, isn't that also a contributing factor in the reduction of flights from California to Europe?