Possible Miami - Tokyo announcement soon

119297 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:35 am

Rumors of new Miami to Tokyo service could be announced soon.

https://www.thenextmiami.com/miami-tour ... ines-soon/

We have been hearing this rumor for many years, hopefully it becomes a reality soon.

NichCage · Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:47 am

Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

maortega15 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:54 am

An A350 could do it with full pax and some cargo from HKG.

Can Miami become the new Hawaii for the Japanese?! :hyper:

FoxtrotSierra · Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:57 am

I will be very surprised if JAL is the one that does this. This route seems like a much better fit for NH, and as CX has demonstrated, being part of Oneworld has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, so I would really be amazed if this is actually JAL's rationale for launching MIA.

adamh8297 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:05 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
I will be very surprised if JAL is the one that does this. This route seems like a much better fit for NH, and as CX has demonstrated, being part of Oneworld has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, so I would really be amazed if this is actually JAL's rationale for launching MIA.

JL is in a Transpac JV with AA though - that's more important than alliance.

727LOVER · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:12 am

Landing a flight to Asia has become a priority for local business and tourism leaders, as well as officials at Dade’s Aviation Department.

...and a few a.netters.

We won't mention which ones ! :rotfl:

nc3rd · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:27 am

Why JAL and not AA?

airgeekteen · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:28 am

NichCage wrote:
Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

Miami has a flight to Doha, which is in Asia.

maortega15 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:29 am

787fan8 wrote:
I pray to God that this is true. MIA has been without an East Asian airline for far too long. The time has come to change that.

And these new plastic planes are perfect for these types of routes

787fan8 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:29 am

I pray to God that this is true. MIA has been without an East Asian airline for far too long. The time has come to change that.

DL757NYC · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:33 am

NichCage wrote:
Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

What aircraft can do this trip with full passenger load and cargo?

777Mech · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:33 am

miaami wrote:
Rumors of new Miami to Tokyo service could be announced soon.

https://www.thenextmiami.com/miami-tour ... ines-soon/

We have been hearing this rumor for many years, hopefully it becomes a reality soon.

Not this again... this is up there with the "Boeing restarting the 757 line" threads..

727LOVER · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:36 am

nc3rd wrote:
Why JAL and not AA?

AA stated a few years back that it wasn't interested in MIA-Orient

aemoreira1981 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:47 am

Sounds like an operation for a 195-seat JL B789. With such a light cabin, those B789s can easily do 7800 nmi without restriction. Even their B77Ws could do this as they are again very roomy (only 244 seats with a high J and W configuration).

OB1504 · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:48 am

727LOVER wrote:
nc3rd wrote:
Why JAL and not AA?

AA stated a few years back that it wasn't interested in MIA-Orient

Plus AA isn't operating the 787 to MIA at this time, and it would almost certainly be the aircraft to launch the route with.

rbavfan · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:54 am

maortega15 wrote:
An A350 could do it with full pax and some cargo from HKG.

Can Miami become the new Hawaii for the Japanese?!

lol no.

rbavfan · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:56 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
I will be very surprised if JAL is the one that does this. This route seems like a much better fit for NH, and as CX has demonstrated, being part of Oneworld has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, so I would really be amazed if this is actually JAL's rationale for launching MIA.

JAL and AA have metal neutral JV if I remember right. So JAL will be more likely as NH has no feeder carrier.

mcogator · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:57 am

NichCage wrote:
Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

Well if you don't consider the Middle East in Asia, yes.

rbavfan · Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:58 am

DL757NYC wrote:
NichCage wrote:
Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

What aircraft can do this trip with full passenger load and cargo?

777, 787, A350 & A380.

rbavfan · Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:01 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Sounds like an operation for a 195-seat JL B789. With such a light cabin, those B789s can easily do 7800 nmi without restriction. Even their B77Ws could do this as they are again very roomy (only 244 seats with a high J and W configuration).

The J seats in that "light cabin" are heavier than if they had more coach seats. A Y 3 seat set can weigh 75 lb. or less while a single lay flat J seat weighs in the 200 lb. plus range each.

lavalampluva · Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:04 am

Flights are just getting too long. Sitting in Y for that long? :roll:

B752OS · Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:09 am

maortega15 wrote:
An A350 could do it with full pax and some cargo from HKG.

Can Miami become the new Hawaii for the Japanese?!

Not a chance.

ordell · Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:35 am

My God, how long would that flight be?

LAXLHR · Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:41 am

727LOVER wrote:
nc3rd wrote:
Why JAL and not AA?

AA stated a few years back that it wasn't interested in MIA-Orient

Yes, but that was a few years ago and much has changed at AA, and their overall real time assessment of the 787s. Cannot sit in the past.

doug_or · Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:42 am

rbavfan wrote:

The J seats in that "light cabin" are heavier than if they had more coach seats. A Y 3 seat set can weigh 75 lb. or less while a single lay flat J seat weighs in the 200 lb. plus range each.

Neither JL nor AA is in the business of transporting empty seats. 3 Y seats with people is going to be almost 700 lbs, while the J seat with a person will be about 400.

The J pax will have more catering, but the baggage will end up widening the gap further.

LAX772LR · Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:43 am

NichCage wrote:
It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

No it wouldn't. Wouldn't even be the second.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
I will be very surprised if JAL is the one that does this. This route seems like a much better fit for NH, and as CX has demonstrated, being part of Oneworld has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, so I would really be amazed if this is actually JAL's rationale for launching MIA.

Neither one of these points appear to make the slightest bit of sense.

FoxtrotSierra · Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:44 am

ordell wrote:
My God, how long would that flight be?

23 miles shorter than ATL-DOH

DocLightning · Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:52 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
ordell wrote:
My God, how long would that flight be?

23 miles shorter than ATL-DOH

And 64 nmi shorter than SYD-LAX.

smi0006 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:40 am

DocLightning wrote:
FoxtrotSierra wrote:
ordell wrote:
My God, how long would that flight be?

23 miles shorter than ATL-DOH

And 64 nmi shorter than SYD-LAX.

Is there terrain challenges? SYD-LAX has been flown nonstop for decades since the SP days with 744, 772ER, 77W, 789- why is equipment a concern?

BoeingGuy · Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:59 am

smi0006 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
FoxtrotSierra wrote:

23 miles shorter than ATL-DOH

And 64 nmi shorter than SYD-LAX.

Is there terrain challenges? SYD-LAX has been flown nonstop for decades since the SP days with 744, 772ER, 77W, 789- why is equipment a concern?

You haven’t been to Florida much?

The highest point in the entire state is like as high as a freeway overpass. No terrain issues at MIA. None at NRT either. I think people don’t realize this is no farther than the other flights mentioned.

DocLightning · Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:36 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

And 64 nmi shorter than SYD-LAX.

Is there terrain challenges? SYD-LAX has been flown nonstop for decades since the SP days with 744, 772ER, 77W, 789- why is equipment a concern?

You haven’t been to Florida much? The highest point in the entire state is like as high as a freeway overpass. No terrain issues at MIA. None at NRT either. I think people don’t realize this is no farther than the other flights mentioned.

If you look at the GC route from MIA to Tokyo, it passes east of the Rockies, east of the Sierras, and east of the Sawtooth until about 2/5 of the flight in, by which point it should have burned off enough. It will be in the vicinity of the Appalachians/Smokies a couple of hours after departure from MIA, but with most peaks not much taller than 6,000 feet, they shouldn't be of concern. Japan is a mountainous country, but it's long and skinny and the GC route passes east of most of the Japanese islands. Neither NRT nor HND have any significant terrain issues near the airport, either, at least none that stop very heavy widebodies from routinely flying out of them.

jfk777 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:21 am

The most viable airline to Tokyo from Miami is JAL, they have an interest and alliance partner at MIA. ANA would rely on O & D traffic only. AA for some strange reason doesn't want to fly it, whatever AA Asian vision is from its other hubs it has largely been achieved.

2travel2know2 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:23 am

jfk777 wrote:
The most viable airline to Tokyo from Miami is JAL, they have an interest and alliance partner at MIA. ANA would rely on O & D traffic only.

Interline international to international connections at MIA aren't quite easy these days but NH could somewhat offer connecting AV/CM traffic; both StarAlliance airlines like NH.
NH-UA connecting traffic @ MIA would be almost non-existent albeit inconvenient.

raylee67 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:33 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
I will be very surprised if JAL is the one that does this. This route seems like a much better fit for NH, and as CX has demonstrated, being part of Oneworld has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, so I would really be amazed if this is actually JAL's rationale for launching MIA.

I am not sure why you said this. But CX has publicly stated many times that the code sharing with AA is very important to it. The code sharing via JFK and LAX are what made it possible for CX to expand quickly to multi-daily to LAX and JFK.

Of course, to code share with AA does not require CX being part of oneworld, but given AA's relationship with HU (before its purchase of CZ's equities), AA may well has chosen HX as its partner at HKG if CX was not already part of oneworld. That would have been detrimental to CX. Arguably, among all CX's code sharing agreements, the one with AA is the most important. AA has probably asked CX to join the JL-AA JV, just like oneworld has multiple carriers in the trans-Atlantic JV. And it's probably CX which has declined to deepen the relationship. CX would be more profitable running the USA routes by itself, vs. having to share the revenue with AA.

And like many others have pointed out, JL and AA is a trans-Pac JV. It does not matter to them who flies NRT-MIA. They function as one airline for Japan-US flights.

kriskim · Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:51 am

It's definitely JL.

Pengaea · Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:08 pm

raylee67 wrote:
Arguably, among all CX's code sharing agreements, the one with AA is the most important. AA has probably asked CX to join the JL-AA JV, just like oneworld has multiple carriers in the trans-Atlantic JV. And it's probably CX which has declined to deepen the relationship.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't the reason that CX can't be involved in a JV because the US and Hong Kong don't have an open-skies agreement? If my understanding is correct, Hong Kong is counted as China for open-skies, which is a prerequisite for operating a JV. With China being China, I doubt we'll see open-skies (and thus CX joining the AA/JL JV) any time soon...

spinotter · Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:34 pm

airgeekteen wrote:
NichCage wrote:
Well it is a big market for sure, bound to be served at some point. It would also be the first route from MIA to Asia as well.

I'm sure a 787-8 or 787-9 could do it.

Miami has a flight to Doha, which is in Asia.

I knew that correction was coming! Tel Aviv is also in Asia (LY 18) - just saying!

tjh8402 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:00 pm

I think JAL would be the most likely candidate because of AA's frequent flyer base in Miami, but I don't see that much feed. this would have to be local demand. Any southeastern cities other than maybe MCO would probably be more likely to connect somewhere north and/or west rather than back tracking to MIA. I guess there could be some international feed from LatAm but we all hear how hard US international connections are, not to mention that MIA customs and connections aren't the easiest in the world.

synanthropic · Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:44 pm

Two of us have posted a few months ago that this official announcement should be announced shortly. Things can always take some time to shake out, of course.

AAvgeek744 · Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:04 pm

smi0006 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
FoxtrotSierra wrote:

23 miles shorter than ATL-DOH

And 64 nmi shorter than SYD-LAX.

Is there terrain challenges? SYD-LAX has been flown nonstop for decades since the SP days with 744, 772ER, 77W, 789- why is equipment a concern?

Once climate change gets Miami, I guess an under water airport could be classified as a terrain challenge. :duck:

LAX772LR · Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:20 pm

jfk777 wrote:
AA for some strange reason doesn't want to fly it

It's not exactly guesswork... they don't want to fly it, because they don't currently believe it'd make money relative to whatever else their plane could be doing.

Cost + Opportunity Cost > Expectant Revenue

Pengaea wrote:
If my understanding is correct, Hong Kong is counted as China for open-skies

Nope. The USA-HKG bilateral has nothing to do with the PRC.

It sadly hasn't been updated since October 2002; open skies wasn't even a forethought with them at that time.
Heck, it still has comparatively draconian limits on codesharing.

You can read it for yourself, if ya want:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/130531.pdf

Antarius · Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:24 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
AA for some strange reason doesn't want to fly it

It's not exactly guesswork... they don't want to fly it, because they don't currently believe it'd make money relative to whatever else their plane could be doing.

Cost + Opportunity Cost > Expectant Revenue

Plus with a metal neutral JV with JAL, if JAL is willing to fly it, even better.

centrair · Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:59 pm

I could see MIA-TYO as another route but for what end? In the JAL/AA JV, is there a real financial benefit?

Dallas, and Texas in general, has become a trading and business destination as well as a competitive transfer point for traveling to South America.

I wonder what the connecting traffic from MIA to Tokyo on any carrier is now?

Pengaea · Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:15 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Nope. The USA-HKG bilateral has nothing to do with the PRC.

It sadly hasn't been updated since October 2002; open skies wasn't even a forethought with them at that time.
Heck, it still has comparatively draconian limits on codesharing.

You can read it for yourself, if ya want:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/130531.pdf

Huh. So... the US and HKSAR could theoretically negotiate an open-skies agreement, then?

The codeshare stipulations do seem strict. 25 destinations total in the US? I wonder why there hasn't been an agreement since. They did "express their intention to meet again to review bilateral air services agreements in 2005."

LAX772LR · Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:50 am

Pengaea wrote:
Huh. So... the US and HKSAR could theoretically negotiate an open-skies agreement, then?

If they wanted to.

Pengaea wrote:
I wonder why there hasn't been an agreement since. They did "express their intention to meet again to review bilateral air services agreements in 2005."

What'd really be in it for the HKG side?

Almost every US city with significant demand to HKG already has a nonstop... the glaring exceptions being IAH (proximity to DFW, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a CX A350 on HKG-IAH at some point) and even more so MIA, where CX has even asked the OEMs to build it a plane that could make the distance with the payload it wants.

jfk777 · Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:53 am

For so many reasons the logical first route from Miami to Asia should be Tokyo. Hong Kong would be wonderful for a nonstop it may be too far west to
make it viable. Miami to HKG has to be 17 hours flying time which doesn't make sense.

LAX772LR · Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:37 am

jfk777 wrote:
For so many reasons the logical first route from Miami to Asia should be Tokyo.

It's not possible for Tokyo to be Miami's first route to Asia, considering that it already has flights to Asia.

jfk777 wrote:
Hong Kong would be wonderful for a nonstop it may be too far west to make it viable.

HKG is primarily north of MIA, not really all that far west.

raylee67 · Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:03 am

Pengaea wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Arguably, among all CX's code sharing agreements, the one with AA is the most important. AA has probably asked CX to join the JL-AA JV, just like oneworld has multiple carriers in the trans-Atlantic JV. And it's probably CX which has declined to deepen the relationship.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't the reason that CX can't be involved in a JV because the US and Hong Kong don't have an open-skies agreement? If my understanding is correct, Hong Kong is counted as China for open-skies, which is a prerequisite for operating a JV. With China being China, I doubt we'll see open-skies (and thus CX joining the AA/JL JV) any time soon...

Hong Kong has a separate air traffic agreement with US. It does not utilize the China-USA agreement. Also, Hong Kong has the full authority to negotiate a separate air traffic agreement with other countries by itself. Now, in terms of whether the agreement between Hong Kong and USA is open-skies, I am not sure. It seems to me that HKG-USA routes do not carry any restrictions in terms of point of entry, frequency and capacity. But there are definitely restrictions on fifth-rights. Even those are fairly liberal, and I think the US carriers are not interested in fully utilizing those fifth rights any more. Those were used previously by UA and Delta.

You can find the agreements here:
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/h/hk/

cedarjet · Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:06 am

JAL flew to Miami in the 70s with the DC-8-62, funny routing too. Clearly no one else here remembers!

(Also JAL had a seasonal route that went HND-HNL-LAX-MSY-CCS-Belem-Rio. That was DC-8 as well, MSY was a technical stop only on the leg LAX-CCS, no traffic rights. Wild!)

synanthropic · Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:38 pm

jfk777 wrote:
For so many reasons the logical first route from Miami to Asia should be Tokyo.

Strictly and technically speaking, there are already routes from MIA to Asia.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net