US-UA Apply For Temp. Reallocation Of Brazil Freq.
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
I thought I had read in the DOT dockets that the proposed start date for the GRU route is jan 11 2011 1 day after UAL suspends their IAD -GRU seasonal service. I don't think the Brazilian Gov't will let the slots sit dormant until next Nov, they are typically very aggressive with this issue.
Huh? These frequencies (not slots, persay) have sat dormant for 340 out of 365 days for past two years. The frequencies can be kept dormant so long as another US carrier doesn't propose to make better use of them. In that case, the incumbent can either propose to start using them or the DOT will institute a reallocation proceeding to determine who to award the frequencies to (in short, the Brazilian government has no say on this matter).
The application does state Jan 2011, but US also mentions that it will happen after it clears all regulatory hurdles (which is not a walk in the park, when it comes to dealing with the Brazilian government).
Looks like the DOT approved the swap.
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b26e5f
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b26e5f
Regardless of what the Applcation states, the DOT conditions are to start within 90 days of January 11, 2011, or forfeit the rights back to United. They have experience with PHL-PEK. It's US Airways responsibilty (not the U.S. Government's) to negotiate and satisfy any Brazilian provisions, such as slot times and to then start service by that date window.
I've always wondered how these SA flights are profitable, for any carrier. Unless I'm mistaken, each route requires two planes to operate since the planes sit idle during the day in the South American city as both directions are red eyes.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
These rights are awarded by the US government, not Brazil. The US gov't negotiated these and all rights with a foreign country for its carriers. Foreign carriers do not determine how the US awards rights to its carriers.
The application does indeed say that US is to start the GRU service this winter. The whole reason UA agreed to the swap is because the slots have been underutilized for the past year and both AA and DL have been anxious to add more Brazil service and they could very well ask for the frequencies to be reallocated to a carrier that will better use them. DL went after 2 of UA's ex-GRU frequencies which were used to start LAX-GRU and which have since been transferred to start DTW-GRU and will be supplemented by 3 more frequencies that DL can indirectly use to make DTW-GRU a 5x/week operation.
US could keep GIG and oeprate the flight CLT-GRU-GIG but it is not likely they will. Tags are expensive and if they can fill the plane with GRU passengers, there is no reason to continue flying to GIG. There will be opportunities to serve GIG in the future; GRU is the most restricted airport in the western hemisphere in terms of access.
It is also not surprising that UA is not committed to allowing US to keep the frequencies into the 2016 games in Rio.
Also, DL says its operations at ATL are now about 50% local and 50% international. And most of DL's international flights carry about 20-25% local traffic which is actually quite high given that DL at ATL is the 2nd largest int'l gateway in the US behind CO at EWR. ATL is a much bigger market than CLT and does indeed support alot of its international service.
As DL develops DTW which was clearly underdeveloped in terms of the number of international destinations served, it is actually likely that DL's international growth at ATL will slow in terms of new destinations but the destinations that are kept at ATL will see larger aircraft as DL puts the 330s on their established routes and uses the 767s to open new routes from DTW and SEA.
The application does indeed say that US is to start the GRU service this winter. The whole reason UA agreed to the swap is because the slots have been underutilized for the past year and both AA and DL have been anxious to add more Brazil service and they could very well ask for the frequencies to be reallocated to a carrier that will better use them. DL went after 2 of UA's ex-GRU frequencies which were used to start LAX-GRU and which have since been transferred to start DTW-GRU and will be supplemented by 3 more frequencies that DL can indirectly use to make DTW-GRU a 5x/week operation.
US could keep GIG and oeprate the flight CLT-GRU-GIG but it is not likely they will. Tags are expensive and if they can fill the plane with GRU passengers, there is no reason to continue flying to GIG. There will be opportunities to serve GIG in the future; GRU is the most restricted airport in the western hemisphere in terms of access.
It is also not surprising that UA is not committed to allowing US to keep the frequencies into the 2016 games in Rio.
Also, DL says its operations at ATL are now about 50% local and 50% international. And most of DL's international flights carry about 20-25% local traffic which is actually quite high given that DL at ATL is the 2nd largest int'l gateway in the US behind CO at EWR. ATL is a much bigger market than CLT and does indeed support alot of its international service.
As DL develops DTW which was clearly underdeveloped in terms of the number of international destinations served, it is actually likely that DL's international growth at ATL will slow in terms of new destinations but the destinations that are kept at ATL will see larger aircraft as DL puts the 330s on their established routes and uses the 767s to open new routes from DTW and SEA.
autofixer
Veteran
It looks like LCC is going to serve BOTH destinations from CLT:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/05/1604032/feds-approve-us-air-service-from.html
I work GIG quite often and it has become very, very successful; both in passengers and cargo.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/05/1604032/feds-approve-us-air-service-from.html
I work GIG quite often and it has become very, very successful; both in passengers and cargo.
The DOT reported Revenue traffic CLT-GIG-CLT LOAD FACTORS for the HIGH Season Months of Jan/Feb/Mar 2010 was 69% / 62% / 46% respectively. These are average Round Trip loads over an entire month and do not give visibility into the ratios of one way traffic (CLT-GIG, GIG-CLT). So the Loads going down (CLT-GIG) could be higher, or lower, than GIG-CLT.
It seems reasonable to conclude from the data that unless US is filling Envoy with very high paid fares on most flights, this 4100nm route is producing very low Yields. Not to put too negative a point on this, the route is new and initial poor/fair performance was possibly anticipated. However from a pure economic standpoint, it would seem that unless there is significant improvement by mid-2011, the route could be in jeopardy.
IberiaMAL
Advanced
- Dec 30, 2008
- 118
- 23
50% "local" ?
h34r: Are you talking about the city of Atlanta, or THe United States of America.
autofixer
Veteran
Yes loads were terrible until we began a code share with TAM. Now they seem to be pretty good and this is Winter in Rio. I know this is anecdotal, but I work the route fairly often. Envoy is most often full and when coach is not full, we carry as much cargo as max. takeoff weight will allow. Wed. night we carried 52,000# of cargo to CLT. I am guessing we make as much revenue off of cargo as off of the folks. We still had a good load of folks, I think 140 and that was one of the lightest I have seen in a while.
I don't worry about it too much, it will be what it is and selling tickets is above my pay-grade. I do hope the route continues and we get to do GRU also. Time will tell.
Spot on. I would say that GIG has really picked up in both avg fare and load factor since the beginning of June. Also advanced bookings for the fall (off season) seem to be be much better than advance bookings for the spring (off season) Three reasons why GIG was taking so long to develop:
-US was a new entrant to the continent; most Brazilians didn't know who US was
-US had a problem accepting Brazilian credit cards to start with; that problem has since been fixed
-US didn't have a code share; their code share with TAM is now in effect.
Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can't seem to book any South American destinations with connections in GIG on usairways.com. Are we sure the codeshare has begun? Or, has the web site functionality not yet been updated to book the codeshare flights?
It is great to hear that service to GRU will be coming and that the code share with TAM is also having an effect on bookings. People need to remember that USAirways did NOT have Brand Recognition in South America by any means and an expansion on this continent has to be done slowly and carefully. Opening new routes is very expensive and most carriers endure heavy losses initially. Hopefully US will utilize the association with TAM to their benefit and really put an effort in expanding down South........Buenos Aries, Santiago,Lima, Quito, Bogata to name a few. With Sao Paulo being the major business center on the continent and obviously a higher yield fare, the A330 will be featured on the route.....not that tired 'dog' the B767. I guess we will wait and see......There is a lot of potential in South America.
Similar threads
