TK and QR Loads from MIA

Kd112c · Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:56 pm

Any idea on the load factors of TK and QR at MIA?

Both have been at MIA for about 2/3 years respectively and they are daily flights.

I would like to see another ME3 (I.E Saudia, Etihad) come in.

OB1504 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:58 pm

Saudia is not one of the ME3 nor do I think that they'd be up to competing against them.

With Qatar and Turkish at MIA and Emirates up the road at FLL, I think the South Florida–Middle East market is well covered. I don't think there'd be room for Etihad. Plus, Etihad is not an alliance member and AA just dropped their codeshare with them—although the interline agreement remains in place for the time being—so they'd be almost completely dependent on O&D traffic.

Miami · Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:13 pm

Both have been doing quite well.

Today's QR flight to MIA has 358 inbound. TK flight to MIA has 318 pax.

In terms of another Middle Eastern carrier coming in; that doesn't seem likely for at least another few years.

winginit · Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:30 pm

Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Today's QR flight to MIA has 358 inbound. TK flight to MIA has 318 pax.

In terms of another Middle Eastern carrier coming in; that doesn't seem likely for at least another few years.

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Miami · Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:49 pm

winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Today's QR flight to MIA has 358 inbound. TK flight to MIA has 318 pax.

In terms of another Middle Eastern carrier coming in; that doesn't seem likely for at least another few years.

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Those numbers are off. Try again.

MAH4546 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:55 pm

I don't know about TK but Qatar was misreporting load factors for MIA, by filing more flights than they actually flew.

MIA publishes airline data on its website from which it's easy to get LF.

winginit · Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:10 pm

Miami wrote:
winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Today's QR flight to MIA has 358 inbound. TK flight to MIA has 318 pax.

In terms of another Middle Eastern carrier coming in; that doesn't seem likely for at least another few years.

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

gdg9 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:27 am

Does MIA, or other airports, post passenger traffic ala DFW?

Miami · Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:10 am

winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
winginit wrote:

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

There was a thread that had false numbers straight from T100. Feel free to dig that thread up.

Pelly · Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:38 am

winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
winginit wrote:

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

QR posts correct passenger numbers but sometimes posts incorrect capacity numbers, for example if a month has 10 flights with a 77L and 20 flights with a 77W, whomever posts the capacity would put the capacity of 30 77W if the flight is usually a 77W which will show a lower loadfactor than actual. Same thing happens when QR operated some flights less than daily, the capacity is sometimes put in for a daily flight. Overall the reported T100 LFs for QR are less than actual but passenger numbers are correct, this is due to the wrong capacity numbers inputted in certain months for certain routes.

In any case MIA is a relative weak performer for QR.

MAH4546 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:43 am

winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
winginit wrote:

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

QR does (or did, maybe since fixed), in fact, report incorrect passenger capacity data to DOT and therefore you can't accurately calculate the load-factors. They fail to account for change of gauge or frequency (e.g. they at one point where filing MIA as operating daily, when it was only 4w; or they'll report a route as operating a 77W for everyday in a month, when a 77L may have subbed in a few times). But the passenger carried numbers they report are correct.

KTPAFlyer · Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:12 am

Is it possible that QR moves to FLL to retain a strong position in South Florida by partnering with B6 after AA dropped the codeshare weakening MIA?

MAH4546 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:51 am

KTPAFlyer wrote:
Is it possible that QR moves to FLL to retain a strong position in South Florida by partnering with B6 after AA dropped the codeshare weakening MIA?

Nope. QR will continue to receive feed from AA via interlining. If anything, EK moves to MIA because the B6 feed is minimal and it's losing out on more premium traffic that goes with QR.

winginit · Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:42 pm

Miami wrote:
winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

There was a thread that had false numbers straight from T100. Feel free to dig that thread up.

I'm good. Will wait for your numbers that speak to the contrary of mine.

clrd4t8koff · Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:11 pm

Pelly wrote:
winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:

Those numbers are off. Try again.

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

QR posts correct passenger numbers but sometimes posts incorrect capacity numbers, for example if a month has 10 flights with a 77L and 20 flights with a 77W, whomever posts the capacity would put the capacity of 30 77W if the flight is usually a 77W which will show a lower loadfactor than actual. Same thing happens when QR operated some flights less than daily, the capacity is sometimes put in for a daily flight. Overall the reported T100 LFs for QR are less than actual but passenger numbers are correct, this is due to the wrong capacity numbers inputted in certain months for certain routes.

In any case MIA is a relative weak performer for QR.

Correct! MIA is, and has been, a weak performer passenger wise for QR. I have no clue about cargo.

Looking at ExpertFlyer for tonight's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight there are currently the following booked seats:

Y - 106 (out of 316 seats)
J - 21 (out of 42 seats)

So 127 seats out of 358 = 35% load factor . For an ULH that's atrocious! They already cut service this month with less than a month's notice - viewtopic.php?t=1369125

Flame away...

Pelly · Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:00 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:
winginit wrote:

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

QR posts correct passenger numbers but sometimes posts incorrect capacity numbers, for example if a month has 10 flights with a 77L and 20 flights with a 77W, whomever posts the capacity would put the capacity of 30 77W if the flight is usually a 77W which will show a lower loadfactor than actual. Same thing happens when QR operated some flights less than daily, the capacity is sometimes put in for a daily flight. Overall the reported T100 LFs for QR are less than actual but passenger numbers are correct, this is due to the wrong capacity numbers inputted in certain months for certain routes.

In any case MIA is a relative weak performer for QR.

Correct! MIA is, and has been, a weak performer passenger wise for QR. I have no clue about cargo.

Looking at ExpertFlyer for tonight's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight there are currently the following booked seats:

Y - 106 (out of 316 seats)
J - 21 (out of 42 seats)

So 127 seats out of 358 = 35% load factor . For an ULH that's atrocious! They already cut service this month with less than a month's notice - viewtopic.php?t=1369125

Flame away...

Umm, QR keeps seats available until people select them so all that shows is 127 passengers selected their seats via online check or with their reservation. If you check all other QR flights you will get the same pattern.

Back to the T100, If you go by the T100 PAX numbers and compile capacity from tail numbers from flight tracker logs 2006 average LF is 76%.

clrd4t8koff · Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:12 am

Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:

QR posts correct passenger numbers but sometimes posts incorrect capacity numbers, for example if a month has 10 flights with a 77L and 20 flights with a 77W, whomever posts the capacity would put the capacity of 30 77W if the flight is usually a 77W which will show a lower loadfactor than actual. Same thing happens when QR operated some flights less than daily, the capacity is sometimes put in for a daily flight. Overall the reported T100 LFs for QR are less than actual but passenger numbers are correct, this is due to the wrong capacity numbers inputted in certain months for certain routes.

In any case MIA is a relative weak performer for QR.

Correct! MIA is, and has been, a weak performer passenger wise for QR. I have no clue about cargo.

Looking at ExpertFlyer for tonight's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight there are currently the following booked seats:

Y - 106 (out of 316 seats)
J - 21 (out of 42 seats)

So 127 seats out of 358 = 35% load factor . For an ULH that's atrocious! They already cut service this month with less than a month's notice - viewtopic.php?t=1369125

Flame away...

Umm, QR keeps seats available until people select them so all that shows is 127 passengers selected their seats via online check or with their reservation. If you check all other QR flights you will get the same pattern.

Back to the T100, If you go by the T100 PAX numbers and compile capacity from tail numbers from flight tracker logs 2006 average LF is 76%.

Umm, no. If you think hundreds of people just 'didn't select their seats' you're delusional. Some (~20 at max maybe) people might not pre-select sears. But If you looked at QR's BOS-DOH flight tonight earlier on ExpertFlyer you would have seen 207 seats out of 241 (in Y) selected. MIA is generally abysmal for QR.

But what's even more confusing is that YOU even said MIA was weak performer for MIA for QR, I agree, back it up with stats and then you come back and try to defend their LF. Okay, that makes sense....

Pelly · Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:27 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

Correct! MIA is, and has been, a weak performer passenger wise for QR. I have no clue about cargo.

Looking at ExpertFlyer for tonight's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight there are currently the following booked seats:

Y - 106 (out of 316 seats)
J - 21 (out of 42 seats)

So 127 seats out of 358 = 35% load factor . For an ULH that's atrocious! They already cut service this month with less than a month's notice - viewtopic.php?t=1369125

Flame away...

Umm, QR keeps seats available until people select them so all that shows is 127 passengers selected their seats via online check or with their reservation. If you check all other QR flights you will get the same pattern.

Back to the T100, If you go by the T100 PAX numbers and compile capacity from tail numbers from flight tracker logs 2006 average LF is 76%.

Umm, no. If you think hundreds of people just 'didn't select their seats' you're delusional. Some (~20 at max maybe) people might not pre-select sears. But If you looked at QR's BOS-DOH flight tonight earlier on ExpertFlyer you would have seen 207 seats out of 241 (in Y) selected. MIA is generally abysmal for QR.

But what's even more confusing is that YOU even said MIA was weak performer for MIA for QR, I agree, back it up with stats and then you come back and try to defend their LF. Okay, that makes sense....

I am ex-QR, and I know how things work with seat selection there. The percentage of passengers who don't pick there seats is much higher 20 especially with certain demographics most passengers in fact don't pick their seats. Today's MIA flight doesn't have a LF of 37% as you suggested from expertflyer data.

I didn't defend their LF and the fact that I said that they have a LF of 76% doesn't contradict my point that it is a relative weak performer for QR. 76% is not good for a flight of this length at the yields that QR achieves and MIA has a lower LF than QR's average for the US and lower than some non-AA hub flights e.g. IAD (which also has more competition and is less costly to operate).

eal · Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:44 am

winginit wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Today's QR flight to MIA has 358 inbound. TK flight to MIA has 318 pax.

In terms of another Middle Eastern carrier coming in; that doesn't seem likely for at least another few years.

In aggregate it looks a bit less pretty. T100 showing the following for the year ending January 2017:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Compare that to say JFK for the same time period:

QR: 84.37%
TK: 82.77%

Comparatively weak load factors into MIA, and I suspect QR's numbers will take a ding given AA's recent codeshare and RBD mapping actions.

Not necessarily a fair comparison, say these number are right (which I do believe they are), Miami is such a smaller market compared New York that to have the ME+4's biggest market in the US be the bench mark definitely skews the data.

I'd like to see the numbers compared to another US city like Dallas, Philadelphia, Atlanta or San Francisco.

MAH4546 · Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:04 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:
winginit wrote:

Literally straight from T100 (nondirectional average) so unless QR and TK are reporting false information to the DOT I'll go with T100 thanks. Do feel free to post your own numbers for the sake of comparison, but until you do your criticisms of my data (which is also the government's data) are irrelevant.

QR posts correct passenger numbers but sometimes posts incorrect capacity numbers, for example if a month has 10 flights with a 77L and 20 flights with a 77W, whomever posts the capacity would put the capacity of 30 77W if the flight is usually a 77W which will show a lower loadfactor than actual. Same thing happens when QR operated some flights less than daily, the capacity is sometimes put in for a daily flight. Overall the reported T100 LFs for QR are less than actual but passenger numbers are correct, this is due to the wrong capacity numbers inputted in certain months for certain routes.

In any case MIA is a relative weak performer for QR.

Correct! MIA is, and has been, a weak performer passenger wise for QR. I have no clue about cargo.

Looking at ExpertFlyer for tonight's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight there are currently the following booked seats:

Y - 106 (out of 316 seats)
J - 21 (out of 42 seats)

So 127 seats out of 358 = 35% load factor . For an ULH that's atrocious! They already cut service this month with less than a month's notice - viewtopic.php?t=1369125

Flame away...

Not how that works bro. If you think you can determine a route's performance by looking at ExpertFlyer, that's absolutely hysterical. Very cute. Then again don't you post delusional ideas like QR flying to CLT?

The QR service to MIA does a very respectable average LF in the 80s, often being overbooked during the usual peaks. It went from 4 weekly 77Ls to a daily 77W for a reason. QR never cut service to MIA with one month notice. MIA service operates on a daily basis throughout August. Like many OAG uploads, that was wrong.

EK to FLL, though, not as good.

clrd4t8koff · Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:18 pm

Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:

Umm, QR keeps seats available until people select them so all that shows is 127 passengers selected their seats via online check or with their reservation. If you check all other QR flights you will get the same pattern.

Back to the T100, If you go by the T100 PAX numbers and compile capacity from tail numbers from flight tracker logs 2006 average LF is 76%.

Umm, no. If you think hundreds of people just 'didn't select their seats' you're delusional. Some (~20 at max maybe) people might not pre-select sears. But If you looked at QR's BOS-DOH flight tonight earlier on ExpertFlyer you would have seen 207 seats out of 241 (in Y) selected. MIA is generally abysmal for QR.

But what's even more confusing is that YOU even said MIA was weak performer for MIA for QR, I agree, back it up with stats and then you come back and try to defend their LF. Okay, that makes sense....

I am ex-QR, and I know how things work with seat selection there. The percentage of passengers who don't pick there seats is much higher 20 especially with certain demographics most passengers in fact don't pick their seats. Today's MIA flight doesn't have a LF of 37% as you suggested from expertflyer data.

I didn't defend their LF and the fact that I said that they have a LF of 76% doesn't contradict my point that it is a relative weak performer for QR. 76% is not good for a flight of this length at the yields that QR achieves and MIA has a lower LF than QR's average for the US and lower than some non-AA hub flights e.g. IAD (which also has more competition and is less costly to operate).

Okay, I'll bite and go with your claim of being ex-QR. So I have two questions then:

1). Why was yesterday's BOS-DOH showing on EF with so many seats pre-booked vs MIA-DOH which showed so few if QR has a high percentage of travelers who don't pre-select seats?

2). What demographic exactly are you referencing?

Pelly · Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:38 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

Umm, no. If you think hundreds of people just 'didn't select their seats' you're delusional. Some (~20 at max maybe) people might not pre-select sears. But If you looked at QR's BOS-DOH flight tonight earlier on ExpertFlyer you would have seen 207 seats out of 241 (in Y) selected. MIA is generally abysmal for QR.

But what's even more confusing is that YOU even said MIA was weak performer for MIA for QR, I agree, back it up with stats and then you come back and try to defend their LF. Okay, that makes sense....

I am ex-QR, and I know how things work with seat selection there. The percentage of passengers who don't pick there seats is much higher 20 especially with certain demographics most passengers in fact don't pick their seats. Today's MIA flight doesn't have a LF of 37% as you suggested from expertflyer data.

I didn't defend their LF and the fact that I said that they have a LF of 76% doesn't contradict my point that it is a relative weak performer for QR. 76% is not good for a flight of this length at the yields that QR achieves and MIA has a lower LF than QR's average for the US and lower than some non-AA hub flights e.g. IAD (which also has more competition and is less costly to operate).

Okay, I'll bite and go with your claim of being ex-QR. So I have two questions then:

1). Why was yesterday's BOS-DOH showing on EF with so many seats pre-booked vs MIA-DOH which showed so few if QR has a high percentage of travelers who don't pre-select seats?

2). What demographic exactly are you referencing?

1) I don't know.

2) South Asian and Arab travellers.

Miami · Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:40 pm

Just to prove a point. Today's QR777 (DOH-MIA) is sold out at 358.

clrd4t8koff · Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:42 pm

Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:

I am ex-QR, and I know how things work with seat selection there. The percentage of passengers who don't pick there seats is much higher 20 especially with certain demographics most passengers in fact don't pick their seats. Today's MIA flight doesn't have a LF of 37% as you suggested from expertflyer data.

I didn't defend their LF and the fact that I said that they have a LF of 76% doesn't contradict my point that it is a relative weak performer for QR. 76% is not good for a flight of this length at the yields that QR achieves and MIA has a lower LF than QR's average for the US and lower than some non-AA hub flights e.g. IAD (which also has more competition and is less costly to operate).

Okay, I'll bite and go with your claim of being ex-QR. So I have two questions then:

1). Why was yesterday's BOS-DOH showing on EF with so many seats pre-booked vs MIA-DOH which showed so few if QR has a high percentage of travelers who don't pre-select seats?

2). What demographic exactly are you referencing?

1) I don't know.

2) South Asian and Arab travellers.

So the fact you say you're ex QR and can't answer #1 and then say the demographic is South Asian and Arab travelers which BOS has MORE of a population of than MIA shows you're a fake.

flyboy_se · Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:45 pm

Although I can't say in general about MIA route for QR, but checking next few days the availability is as follows

13th August QR778 available 17J/195Y QR777 available 17J/4Y
14th August QR778 available 3J/94Y. QR777 available 16J/-11Y
15h August QR778 available 18J/165Y. QR777 available 12J/-21Y
16th August QR778 available 16J/183Y. QR777 available 9J/-5Y
17th August QR778 available 21J/198Y. QR777 available 16J/5Y
18th August QR778 available 6J/163Y. QR777 available 23J/9Y

The QR777 into MIA seems to be doing pretty well, but that is expected as most people would be coming back from holidays/visiting friends and family etc.

Swadian · Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:49 am

How do I look up T100 for each city pair?

Pelly · Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:54 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

Okay, I'll bite and go with your claim of being ex-QR. So I have two questions then:

1). Why was yesterday's BOS-DOH showing on EF with so many seats pre-booked vs MIA-DOH which showed so few if QR has a high percentage of travelers who don't pre-select seats?

2). What demographic exactly are you referencing?

1) I don't know.

2) South Asian and Arab travellers.

So the fact you say you're ex QR and can't answer #1 and then say the demographic is South Asian and Arab travelers which BOS has MORE of a population of than MIA shows you're a fake.

Yikes, why so combative? An airline employee doesn't have all the answers about everything in an airline. If you ask an AA pilot about the lease terms of 777 and he doesn't know would you assume he was a fake pilot? or if you ask an AA Finance VP about the procedure for an engine boroscope would he be able to answer?

I left QR long before the BOS route started and I no longer have access to the internal systems.

atcsundevil · Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:18 pm

Please keep this thread on topic. The off-topic and personal comments are getting ridiculous.

✈️ atcsundevil

clrd4t8koff · Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:21 pm

Pelly wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Pelly wrote:

1) I don't know.

2) South Asian and Arab travellers.

So the fact you say you're ex QR and can't answer #1 and then say the demographic is South Asian and Arab travelers which BOS has MORE of a population of than MIA shows you're a fake.

Yikes, why so combative? An airline employee doesn't have all the answers about everything in an airline. If you ask an AA pilot about the lease terms of 777 and he doesn't know would you assume he was a fake pilot? or if you ask an AA Finance VP about the procedure for an engine boroscope would he be able to answer?

I left QR long before the BOS route started and I no longer have access to the internal systems.

Why would an AA 777 pilot know anything about lease agreements?

You said you were ex-QR and refuted my data
about the loads for Friday's (8/11) MIA-DOH flight, and even went as far to say a certain demographic doesn't pre-select their seat. So if you're ex-QR and know so much about reservations then please tell us what the true loads were on Friday?

Thenoflyzone · Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:00 pm

Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Not according to this.

Granted, these are partial 2016 figures, but nonetheless, and even with a certain element of error, MIA seems to be one of the worst US routes for QR in terms of year round L/F. PHL is the only one that's worse.

thenoflyzone

adamh8297 · Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:09 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Not according to this.

Granted, these are partial 2016 figures, but nonetheless, and even with a certain element of error, MIA seems to be one of the worst US routes for QR in terms of year round L/F. PHL is the only one that's worse.

thenoflyzone

The true question remains what is a truly bad LF for QR? Having every route in their NA network being over 70% is actually a positive in my opinion especially if they are getting paid J.

winginit · Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:20 pm

Miami wrote:
Just to prove a point. Today's QR777 (DOH-MIA) is sold out at 358.

A single day's directional data does little to prove any 'point'. Surely you can do better than that.

MAH4546 wrote:
The QR service to MIA does a very respectable average LF in the 80s

Source please.

Miami · Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:12 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Not according to this.

Granted, these are partial 2016 figures, but nonetheless, and even with a certain element of error, MIA seems to be one of the worst US routes for QR in terms of year round L/F. PHL is the only one that's worse.

thenoflyzone

False info is false info.

We've been over this. Multiple times.

Tkfan · Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:20 pm

Anybody care to check MIAs website?
It is very nicely presented monthly and annually.

http://www.miami-airport.com/revenue_stats.asp

Latest April 2017:
Airline / Capacity / PAX / Lf

Qatar / 19.092 / 14.669 / 76.8%
Turkish / 15.318 / 13.288 / 86.8%

Yakamoz · Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:48 pm

Tkfan wrote:
Anybody care to check MIAs website?
It is very nicely presented monthly and annually.

http://www.miami-airport.com/revenue_stats.asp

Latest April 2017:
Airline / Capacity / PAX / Lf

Qatar / 19.092 / 14.669 / 76.8%
Turkish / 15.318 / 13.288 / 86.8%

13.288 was in April 2017, 15.318 in April 2016.
23 arrivals and 23 departures in Apr 2017, with B777, aircraft capacity of 349 seats. So capacity for Apr 2017 was 16.054. In the end, load factor was 82.8%

Tkfan · Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:53 pm

Yakamoz wrote:
Tkfan wrote:
Anybody care to check MIAs website?
It is very nicely presented monthly and annually.

http://www.miami-airport.com/revenue_stats.asp

Latest April 2017:
Airline / Capacity / PAX / Lf

Qatar / 19.092 / 14.669 / 76.8%
Turkish / 15.318 / 13.288 / 86.8%

13.288 was in April 2017, 15.318 in April 2016.
23 arrivals and 23 departures in Apr 2017, with B777, aircraft capacity of 349 seats. So capacity for Apr 2017 was 16.054. In the end, load factor was 82.8%

Thank you

I just did a (too) quick calculation, wondering why nobody care to look up.

Edit: I checked again. The numbers are correct. Maybe you mixed the columns??

winginit · Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:40 pm

Miami wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
Miami wrote:
Both have been doing quite well.

Not according to this.

Granted, these are partial 2016 figures, but nonetheless, and even with a certain element of error, MIA seems to be one of the worst US routes for QR in terms of year round L/F. PHL is the only one that's worse.

thenoflyzone

False info is false info.

We've been over this. Multiple times.

Do you have any annualized stats of your own? Still waiting for anything that corrects my previously posted T100 numbers for the year ending January 2017, which is the most up to date information available to my knowledge:

QR: 73.78%
TK: 71.28%

Yakamoz · Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:43 pm

Tkfan wrote:
Yakamoz wrote:
Tkfan wrote:
Anybody care to check MIAs website?
It is very nicely presented monthly and annually.

http://www.miami-airport.com/revenue_stats.asp

Latest April 2017:
Airline / Capacity / PAX / Lf

Qatar / 19.092 / 14.669 / 76.8%
Turkish / 15.318 / 13.288 / 86.8%

13.288 was in April 2017, 15.318 in April 2016.
23 arrivals and 23 departures in Apr 2017, with B777, aircraft capacity of 349 seats. So capacity for Apr 2017 was 16.054. In the end, load factor was 82.8%

Thank you
I just did a (too) quick calculation, wondering why nobody care to look up.

Edit: I checked again. The numbers are correct. Maybe you mixed the columns??

Yeah you are right with 86.7%, but 46 flights with TK 77W 349 seats is a capacity of 16.054 seats, MIA Airport has 15.318. Strange.

nadavatar64 · Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:34 am

A bit off topic, but what other US airports posts LFs like MIA's website?

Tkfan · Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:59 am

Yakamoz wrote:
Tkfan wrote:
Yakamoz wrote:

13.288 was in April 2017, 15.318 in April 2016.
23 arrivals and 23 departures in Apr 2017, with B777, aircraft capacity of 349 seats. So capacity for Apr 2017 was 16.054. In the end, load factor was 82.8%

Thank you
I just did a (too) quick calculation, wondering why nobody care to look up.

Edit: I checked again. The numbers are correct. Maybe you mixed the columns??

Yeah you are right with 86.7%, but 46 flights with TK 77W 349 seats is a capacity of 16.054 seats, MIA Airport has 15.318. Strange.

I guess the discrepancy comes from blocked seats Flights were reduced from 60 to 46 YoY, but Cargo went up by almost 80% in the same period.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net