Effective 16 July, PTY-MDZ-PTY increases to daily from the current 4x w. The flight was inaugurated exactly two months ago. With these new frequencies, CM will be operating 49 weekly flights from 4 cities in Argentina (Buenos Aires EZE - 21x w, Cordoba COR - 14x w, Rosario ROS - 7x w and Mendoza - 7x w) to its hub @ PTY.

CM420 PTY 15:40 MDZ 00:21+1 738 D
CM421 MDZ 01:34 PTY 06;30 738 D

Mendoza is one of the fastest growing airports in Argentina; 34% more passengers traveled through MDZ in 2017 over 2016.

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

RJNUT wrote:

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

Major Argentine airport like SLA and TUC have been after CM for years now.

Flying from Panama to Buenos Aires is wonderful but would be even better with a 787. Copa has done wonders for Panama and connecting all of the Americas but they should take the next step and become a two ocean airline. Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai I have never understood the resistance in Panama to anything beyond the limits of 737's.

I fly to LHR often and see AV 787 there so if its viable from BOG why not PTY ?

jfk777 wrote:

Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai

Are you just drawing some imaginary lines or throwing darts on a board? You realized how far PTY is from those cities, right?

The shortest of the bunch, NRT-PTY, would became the 6th longest in the world, just behind AKL-DOH/DXB, SIN-LAX/SFO, and DFW-SYD. ICN-PTY is comparable to DXB-AKL (7666 nmi vs. 7663 nmi for the latter), and PVG-PTY would easily be the longest flight in the world (8110nmi).

Even CA, who is starting flight to PTY, is routing that PEK-IAH-PTY, and only at 2/wk (Instead of all 4/wk going to IAH).

As for Europe - where exactly does people fly to after going to PTY anyway? Colombia and maybe Costa Rica make some geographic sense, but that's about it. It's a huge backtrack to the "Southern Cone" along with Brazil.

RJNUT wrote:

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

This has not much to do with the two airport situation in Buenos Aires.

1. For points north and west of Buenos Aires, connecting there is not ideal, In some cases the backtracking means close to or more than 1,000 miles to get to BUE and then hopping on another plane to get to the Caribbean, the US or Europe, in some cases overflying the origin point. Only for points south of Buenos Aires it makes geographical sense to connect at BUE. LATAM and COPA have discovered this and offer excellent, quick connections at SCL, LIM, GRU or PTY. Avianca should follow soon with the same M.O.

2. AR has opened a significant second domestic hub at EZE, so all major towns have flights that connect to/from the different daily banks of its long haul arrivals/departures. No need to go thru AEP anymore if you come/go to MDQ, BRC, BHI, USH, RGA, FTE, ROS, COR, MDZ, SLA, IGR, ASU, SCL & MVD. In most cases, except for the Patagonia flights, routing via EZE is not the most geographically convenient hub, but there are travelers that for loyalty and pricing reasons select AR.

zakuivcustom wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai

As for Europe - where exactly does people fly to after going to PTY anyway? Colombia and maybe Costa Rica make some geographic sense, but that's about it. It's a huge backtrack to the "Southern Cone" along with Brazil.

Well IB, LH, KL, AF and TK do fill a portion of their flights to/from PTY with code share passengers from CM, because they don't offer full coverage to Latin America, or to increase the number of options for their customers.

2travel2know2 wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

Major Argentine airport like SLA and TUC have been after CM for years now.

I wouldn't call SLA and TUC 'major'. They are probably low yielding, VFR, tourism related, but with needs of connections to other tourist cities, which AR is covering with its COR mini hub.

MDZ, COR and ROS are major, relative to the country of course.

dcajet wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

This has not much to do with the two airport situation in Buenos Aires.

1. For points north and west of Buenos Aires, connecting there is not ideal, In some cases the backtracking means close to or more than 1,000 miles to get to BUE and then hopping on another plane to get to the Caribbean, the US or Europe, in some cases overflying the origin point. Only for points south of Buenos Aires it makes geographical sense to connect at BUE. LATAM and COPA have discovered this and offer excellent, quick connections at SCL, LIM, GRU or PTY. Avianca should follow soon with the same M.O.

2. AR has opened a significant second domestic hub at EZE, so all major towns have flights that connect to/from the different daily banks of its long haul arrivals/departures. No need to go thru AEP anymore if you come/go to MDQ, BRC, BHI, USH, RGA, FTE, ROS, COR, MDZ, SLA, IGR, ASU, SCL & MVD. In most cases, except for the Patagonia flights, routing via EZE is not the most geographically convenient hub, but there are travelers that for loyalty and pricing reasons select AR.

= Brilliant and smart post.

2travel2know2 wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

Cant blame them , due to the split ops at BUE and AEP, secondary Argentinian cities that want transcontinental connectivity have to look outside country

Major Argentine airport like SLA and TUC have been after CM for years now.

= Really? Do you have a source for this?

Honestly, I think the airline that should become more active in Argentina is Aeromexico. Outside the US, it is the #1 destination for traffic from Argentina and I think AM could do a whole lot more to capture this. While CUN may be low yielding, it provides feed and network development. Alternatively, Aerolineas and AM (both shockingly Skyteam members) should have a deeper alliance and allow this traffic to be served over EZE. Latin airlines in general have allowed CM to grow. CM's product is utter crap, especially in J, and there is no reason why an aggressive push by AR/AM or even G3 via BSB/FOR can't make life difficult for CM.

Saludos,
Alex

Honestly, I think the airline that should become more active in Argentina is Aeromexico. Outside the US, it is the #1 destination for traffic from Argentina and I think AM could do a whole lot more to capture this. While CUN may be low yielding, it provides feed and network development. Alternatively, Aerolineas and AM (both shockingly Skyteam members) should have a deeper alliance and allow this traffic to be served over EZE. Latin airlines in general have allowed CM to grow. CM's product is utter crap, especially in J, and there is no reason why an aggressive push by AR/AM or even G3 via BSB/FOR can't make life difficult for CM.

AM is doing enough per demand from Argentina. Surprisingly for two such culturally significant and relatively prosperous LatAm countries, traffic is surprisingly small. MEX or CUN didn’t even break the top 15 list of popular destinations out of EZE or Argentina as a whole for 2016. AM’s focus has been growth in Asia and solidifying SkyTeam hubs in Europe, as well as USA growth with Delta. AM is comfortable with being the sole provider of EZE-MEX and is providing enough flights on a good product. Those choosing CM are the budget conscious or tourists seeking better landing times and dates to CUN. You’re right in that CM is stealing a good chunk of passengers, however, AM does not have sufficient connections on the EZE side to warrant increased flights right now. There’s relatively little VFR/business connections on the Argentine side outside of BsAs to Mexico, so the route depends nearly entirely of P2P demand, which isn’t big.

Tailwinds13 wrote:

Honestly, I think the airline that should become more active in Argentina is Aeromexico. Outside the US, it is the #1 destination for traffic from Argentina and I think AM could do a whole lot more to capture this. While CUN may be low yielding, it provides feed and network development. Alternatively, Aerolineas and AM (both shockingly Skyteam members) should have a deeper alliance and allow this traffic to be served over EZE. Latin airlines in general have allowed CM to grow. CM's product is utter crap, especially in J, and there is no reason why an aggressive push by AR/AM or even G3 via BSB/FOR can't make life difficult for CM.

AM is doing enough per demand from Argentina. Surprisingly for two such culturally significant and relatively prosperous LatAm countries, traffic is surprisingly small. MEX or CUN didn’t even break the top 15 list of popular destinations out of EZE or Argentina as a whole for 2016. AM’s focus has been growth in Asia and solidifying SkyTeam hubs in Europe, as well as USA growth with Delta. AM is comfortable with being the sole provider of EZE-MEX and is providing enough flights on a good product. Those choosing CM are the budget conscious or tourists seeking better landing times and dates to CUN. You’re right in that CM is stealing a good chunk of passengers, however, AM does not have sufficient connections on the EZE side to warrant increased flights right now. There’s relatively little VFR/business connections on the Argentine side outside of BsAs to Mexico, so the route depends nearly entirely of P2P demand, which isn’t big.

Add on a little bit - the economic tie between Argentina and Mexico are not all that big either.

A random indicator from Wikipedia (I know...it's not always 100% accurate, but it's good for a general picture):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... _Argentina

Argentina foreign trade with Mexico is tiny. Chile and Brazil (and Uruguay) are the obvious trade partners. Then you got US and China with both having huge economy. But after that, it's a bunch of western European nations. There are more trade between Argentina and Iran (or India) than Argentina and Mexico, just for the sake of argument.

And I've always think of Argentine culture having a lot more tie to Europe (Chiefly Spain and Italy) than the more mixed culture (European with Indigenous culture/"Amerindian", and in Brazil's case, some African culture) you found in rest of Latin America anyway.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Tailwinds13 wrote:

Honestly, I think the airline that should become more active in Argentina is Aeromexico. Outside the US, it is the #1 destination for traffic from Argentina and I think AM could do a whole lot more to capture this. While CUN may be low yielding, it provides feed and network development. Alternatively, Aerolineas and AM (both shockingly Skyteam members) should have a deeper alliance and allow this traffic to be served over EZE. Latin airlines in general have allowed CM to grow. CM's product is utter crap, especially in J, and there is no reason why an aggressive push by AR/AM or even G3 via BSB/FOR can't make life difficult for CM.

AM is doing enough per demand from Argentina. Surprisingly for two such culturally significant and relatively prosperous LatAm countries, traffic is surprisingly small. MEX or CUN didn’t even break the top 15 list of popular destinations out of EZE or Argentina as a whole for 2016. AM’s focus has been growth in Asia and solidifying SkyTeam hubs in Europe, as well as USA growth with Delta. AM is comfortable with being the sole provider of EZE-MEX and is providing enough flights on a good product. Those choosing CM are the budget conscious or tourists seeking better landing times and dates to CUN. You’re right in that CM is stealing a good chunk of passengers, however, AM does not have sufficient connections on the EZE side to warrant increased flights right now. There’s relatively little VFR/business connections on the Argentine side outside of BsAs to Mexico, so the route depends nearly entirely of P2P demand, which isn’t big.

Add on a little bit - the economic tie between Argentina and Mexico are not all that big either.

A random indicator from Wikipedia (I know...it's not always 100% accurate, but it's good for a general picture):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... _Argentina

Argentina foreign trade with Mexico is tiny. Chile and Brazil (and Uruguay) are the obvious trade partners. Then you got US and China with both having huge economy. But after that, it's a bunch of western European nations. There are more trade between Argentina and Iran (or India) than Argentina and Mexico, just for the sake of argument.

And I've always think of Argentine culture having a lot more tie to Europe (Chiefly Spain and Italy) than the more mixed culture (European with Indigenous culture/"Amerindian", and in Brazil's case, some African culture) you found in rest of Latin America anyway.

Indeed, Mexico and Argentina, in spite of the shared language and a Spanish colonial past, don't have much in common culturally. Argentina has more in common, culturally speaking, with Europe.

That said, I don't think the lack of cultural proximity has much to do with the fact that the economic ties between the countries have not realized their full potential. And I believe there are two reasons for that: one, is the fact that their respective economies are not exactly complementary and then the fact that for the last 20+ years, Mexico has been focusing on NAFTA and free trade agreements with other countries and economic blocks - and Argentina on MERCOSUR and the protectionist policies of the previous Kirchner administration that impeded any progress on the matter.

With a new government in Argentina, and on the Mexican side, the prospects of changes to NAFTA looming on the horizon, both countries have taken steps forward in the trade department. For the first time in history, Mexico is purchasing Argentinian wheat and on the Argentina side, the importation of Mexican made cars has restarted.

Neither MEX nor CUN are in the top 20 international destinations from Argentina. Much room for improvement here. Maybe Norwegian Argentina will shake things up somewhat. It has the authorities. While CUN is a favorite of Argentinians, and CM and LATAM take the lion's share of that traffic, especially from cities other than Buenos Aires, Mexico has to compete with the two top choice out of Argentina: Florida and Brazil.

jfk777 wrote:

Copa has done wonders for Panama and connecting all of the Americas but they should take the next step and become a two ocean airline. Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai

I would like to have some of that weed please.

dcajet wrote:

Neither MEX nor CUN are in the top 20 international destinations from Argentina. Much room for improvement here. Maybe Norwegian Argentina will shake things up somewhat. It has the authorities.

I have found the discussion about Mexico and Argentina in this thread to be quite interesting, and all points made so far allow for a very good discussion. Perhaps it is that I know a lot of Mexicans who love to travel to Argentina for pleasure (I've never been but cannot wait to go), or that I have an Argentine client with businesses in Mexico (some of the C-suite officers have been shuttling between Mexico City and Bs. As. incessantly over the past year), but I would have thought that there is more demand that some of the (obviously more knowledgeable) other posters have explained.

In any case, I think Mexico-Argentina is a market with a lot of potential. The fact that today there may be less demand that the size of the two economies suggest may be regarded -optimistically- as a sign that the potential for continuous and sustained growth is there. I am also a proponent that AM and AR should have more cooperation. A full codeshare on each other's flights (AM's MEX-EZE and AR's EZE-CUN) might allow them to upgauge their aircraft once they get more widebodies and even increase frequencies. The truth is that the likes of CM, AV and LA will continue to serve a lot of the cheap demand that exists, but that does not mean that the Mexico-Argentina market cannot continue to grow and remain profitable for AM and AR. Mexico is learning a lot from Argentina in terms of natural gas, and as others have said foreign trade should increase thanks to Macri's policies and Mexico's need to look beyond NAFTA. Several large Mexican corporates have substantial investments in Argentina, and this Mexican outbound investment should continue to grow, as large local companies would be wise to look at other Latin American jurisdictions that are business friendly and that have large local markets, such as Argentina. We'll see what happens. Btw, what is AM's current schedule to EZE? Once daily with a mix of 788s and 789s???

Mostly the 777.

jfk777 wrote:

Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai. I have never understood the resistance in Panama to anything beyond the limits of 737's.

Copa Airlines doesn't care about these exotic markets.
CM is basically a 738 operator by now.
Boeing and CM had finalized an order for 61 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 airplanes. The Panamanian flagship airline will use the 737 MAX to replace existing airplanes later.

Regards.

zakuivcustom wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai

Are you just drawing some imaginary lines or throwing darts on a board? You realized how far PTY is from those cities, right?

The shortest of the bunch, NRT-PTY, would became the 6th longest in the world, just behind AKL-DOH/DXB, SIN-LAX/SFO, and DFW-SYD. ICN-PTY is comparable to DXB-AKL (7666 nmi vs. 7663 nmi for the latter), and PVG-PTY would easily be the longest flight in the world (8110nmi).

Even CA, who is starting flight to PTY, is routing that PEK-IAH-PTY, and only at 2/wk (Instead of all 4/wk going to IAH).

As for Europe - where exactly does people fly to after going to PTY anyway? Colombia and maybe Costa Rica make some geographic sense, but that's about it. It's a huge backtrack to the "Southern Cone" along with Brazil.

Europe to Panama primary market would be the countries close to Panama, expecting someone to fly from LHR to PTY to GRU would be silly. AV has shown us there is a market from Northwest South America to Europe so why would that be a bad idea for Copa. AS far as Asia, it is very far but 20 years ago who would AeroMexico to fly to Tokyo ? The 787 has shown us it can be done, it may not be time for PTY to NRT but there is a market. Maybe a Copa flight to Japan has to stop in Tijuana.

EddieDude wrote:

Several large Mexican corporates have substantial investments in Argentina, and this Mexican outbound investment should continue to grow, as large local companies would be wise to look at other Latin American jurisdictions that are business friendly and that have large local markets, such as Argentina. We'll see what happens. Btw, what is AM's current schedule to EZE? Once daily with a mix of 788s and 789s???

Off the top of my head, FEMSA, Claro and Bimbo have substantial operations in Argentina. All Starbucks in Argentina are operated by a Starbucks' Mexican franchisee.

AM currently operates 11x w to EZE, 7x w with the 772ER and 4x w with the 787 (both -8 and -9).

While business ties may not be as strong as some claim, demand to Mexico is pretty robust from Argentina. It may be lower yielding traffic to Cancun, but demand is there. Also note that Argentina to Western Canada and US demand is very robust and AM is very suited to capture this as well. AM needs to decide whether it is going to be a serious global player, grow some **lls and take risks, or keep playing it safe. They have been a successful turnaround story with 50 (?) quarters of profit, but with Volaris and Interjet (domestic) and COPA (international) growing in their backyward, needs to make bold decisions. They also need new blood and shake up some of the old school thinking. Having said all this, I do believe they are the airline to watch in Latin America, and they have been doing a lot of good things quietly.

Saludos,
Alex

EddieDude wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Neither MEX nor CUN are in the top 20 international destinations from Argentina. Much room for improvement here. Maybe Norwegian Argentina will shake things up somewhat. It has the authorities.

I have found the discussion about Mexico and Argentina in this thread to be quite interesting, and all points made so far allow for a very good discussion. Perhaps it is that I know a lot of Mexicans who love to travel to Argentina for pleasure (I've never been but cannot wait to go), or that I have an Argentine client with businesses in Mexico (some of the C-suite officers have been shuttling between Mexico City and Bs. As. incessantly over the past year), but I would have thought that there is more demand that some of the (obviously more knowledgeable) other posters have explained.

In any case, I think Mexico-Argentina is a market with a lot of potential. The fact that today there may be less demand that the size of the two economies suggest may be regarded -optimistically- as a sign that the potential for continuous and sustained growth is there. I am also a proponent that AM and AR should have more cooperation. A full codeshare on each other's flights (AM's MEX-EZE and AR's EZE-CUN) might allow them to upgauge their aircraft once they get more widebodies and even increase frequencies. The truth is that the likes of CM, AV and LA will continue to serve a lot of the cheap demand that exists, but that does not mean that the Mexico-Argentina market cannot continue to grow and remain profitable for AM and AR. Mexico is learning a lot from Argentina in terms of natural gas, and as others have said foreign trade should increase thanks to Macri's policies and Mexico's need to look beyond NAFTA. Several large Mexican corporates have substantial investments in Argentina, and this Mexican outbound investment should continue to grow, as large local companies would be wise to look at other Latin American jurisdictions that are business friendly and that have large local markets, such as Argentina. We'll see what happens. Btw, what is AM's current schedule to EZE? Once daily with a mix of 788s and 789s???

If it really comes down to it, I know absolutely nothing about Argentina-Mexico tie other than what's on paper (I usually try to make my statements based on number anyway). I don't disagree about the potential for growth, though. On the other hand, I don't see too much expansion in terms of flights between Mexico and Argentina outside of BUE on one side and MEX/CUN on the other. Secondary Argentina is tiny to start with anyway,

jfk777 wrote:

Europe to Panama primary market would be the countries close to Panama, expecting someone to fly from LHR to PTY to GRU would be silly. AV has shown us there is a market from Northwest South America to Europe so why would that be a bad idea for Copa. AS far as Asia, it is very far but 20 years ago who would AeroMexico to fly to Tokyo ? The 787 has shown us it can be done, it may not be time for PTY to NRT but there is a market. Maybe a Copa flight to Japan has to stop in Tijuana.

Except there's actually a market from Japan to Mexico and Mexico alone. AM has been flying to NRT for awhile by now (Since 2006, although the flight was not non-stop from MEX until 2014 or so). JL also used to fly to MEX (via YVR), although that stopped with their JL's financial woe.

As for NRT-PTY - a stop in TIJ would further reduced the whole point of starting some ultra long haul flight to begin with. Stopping twice (TIJ then PTY) reduced whatever CM's advantage had with secondary market to zero (i.e. NRT-PTY-CNF would have been an advantage to CM, but NRT-TIJ-PTY-CNF is not all that better than NRT-JFK-MIA-CNF or NRT-JFK-GRU-CNF). Yes, a 789 can certainly fly NRT-PTY non-stop with zero problem. But it's still a VERY long flight with high operational cost, which is not something that CM is optimized for.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Panama to Europe could sustain a dozen 787 daily and several more to Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai. I have never understood the resistance in Panama to anything beyond the limits of 737's.

Copa Airlines doesn't care about these exotic markets.
CM is basically a 738 operator by now.
Boeing and CM had finalized an order for 61 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 airplanes. The Panamanian flagship airline will use the 737 MAX to replace existing airplanes later.

Regards.

Since CM is an almost all B737 operator, It has been suggested that CM could get B737-700ER/MAX ETOPS with extra fuel tanks and fly 70+ (mostly business) passengers to MAD and perhaps StarAlliance hub LIS too, but I don't even think CM has ran the numbers of such an operation.

Back to the topic, yes, CM adding more airports and frequencies to Argentina will increase and make it easier to travel the Argentina-Mexico traffic.

I will wait and see what they do. Interesting space to watch out.

zakuivcustom wrote:

On the other hand, I don't see too much expansion in terms of flights between Mexico and Argentina outside of BUE on one side and MEX/CUN on the other. Secondary Argentina is tiny to start with anyway,

Not that tiny - over 30 million people live outside of the city and province of Buenos Aires. Growth at some of the provincial airports has been close to 100% YoY for international traffic in 2017. The problem with Argentina is the distances between cities and how those 30MM people are spread geographically - oftentimes separated by a 1,000 miles between them. COR and ROS could support flights to CUN - and AR has been kicking the tires around that idea with the MAX 8 from COR

dcajet wrote:

AM currently operates 11x w to EZE, 7x w with the 772ER and 4x w with the 787 (both -8 and -9).

Thanks dcajet! That last one (or those last two) 77Es need to go. I believe more 789s are coming this year, so that should allow for the complete phase out of the 77Es.

abrelosojos wrote:

Also note that Argentina to Western Canada and US demand is very robust and AM is very suited to capture this as well. AM needs to decide whether it is going to be a serious global player, grow some **lls and take risks, or keep playing it safe. They have been a successful turnaround story with 50 (?) quarters of profit, but with Volaris and Interjet (domestic) and COPA (international) growing in their backyward, needs to make bold decisions.

Yes, West Coast and Rocky Mountains U.S. and Canada can be connected to Central/South America and viceversa very effectively by AM via MEX. However, the ability of AM to present itself as an efficient connecting carrier (and MEX as a good connections hub) is severely limited by the fact that Mexican authorities require that all arriving international pax have to go through immigration, pick up luggage and go through customs (and let's be honest here, MEX' T2 is no SIN, MUC or ICN). Maybe the new MEX (if it happens) can operate differently and thus become a good hub so that AM can replicate for those markets (and Asia) what PTY has been doing for the Americas.

zakuivcustom wrote:

I don't disagree about the potential for growth, though. On the other hand, I don't see too much expansion in terms of flights between Mexico and Argentina outside of BUE on one side and MEX/CUN on the other. Secondary Argentina is tiny to start with anyway,

Absolutely right. I think we are talking about MEX, EZE and CUN only.

EddieDude wrote:

Absolutely right. I think we are talking about MEX, EZE and CUN only.

= But, they have to take the risk right? I mean, they have to make strategic long haul growth choices to support the narrowbody growth of 737 Max. I checked and they have like 70 on order. All of that can't be carrying traffic between US and MX, especially in the current Trumplandia environment. Let's see.

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

= But, they have to take the risk right? I mean, they have to make strategic long haul growth choices to support the narrowbody growth of 737 Max. I checked and they have like 70 on order. All of that can't be carrying traffic between US and MX, especially in the current Trumplandia environment. Let's see.

Saludos,
Alex

Hi Alex. Good point. However, considering Argentina's high level of centralization in Buenos Aires and all the explanations provided earlier regarding a more limited market between Mexico and Argentina despite appearances and the size of the two economies, I don't see AM launching flights to other cities in Argentina. There are other opportunities in South America, Asia (isn't PEK coming soon?) and even Europe worth exploring, way before thinking of a second Argentina destination. If any, maybe a few charters between CUN and ROS/COR in tandem with some large hospitality/tourism company?

abrelosojos wrote:

EddieDude wrote:

Absolutely right. I think we are talking about MEX, EZE and CUN only.

= But, they have to take the risk right? I mean, they have to make strategic long haul growth choices to support the narrowbody growth of 737 Max. I checked and they have like 70 on order. All of that can't be carrying traffic between US and MX, especially in the current Trumplandia environment. Let's see.

Saludos,
Alex

Umm...737MAX8/9 doesn't really have the range to fly, let say, CUN to EZE. Even MDZ or COR would be stretching quite a bit (Both around 3400nmi, advertised range of 737MAX8/9 is 3515nmi). For comparison, EZE-PUJ is 3240nmi, which is much more doable with the MAX.

And how much has US-MX traffic REALLY drop anyway? Some stuffs still goes on in spite of that certain person in Mar-a-Lago.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Umm...737MAX8/9 doesn't really have the range to fly, let say, CUN to EZE. Even MDZ or COR would be stretching quite a bit (Both around 3400nmi, advertised range of 737MAX8/9 is 3515nmi). For comparison, EZE-PUJ is 3240nmi, which is much more doable with the MAX.

Alex was not implying AM should fly the MAX to Argentina. He said that AM "have to make strategic long haul growth choices to support the narrowbody growth of 737 Max". In other words, he says AM needs more long haul (widebody) flights so as to allow the large number of 737 MAX that will joint the fleet to feed those long hauls.

EddieDude wrote:

Alex was not implying AM should fly the MAX to Argentina.

I highly doubt we will see AM try anything other than tinkering with (increasing) their presence at EZE. However, we will see sooner rather than later, its Skyteam, partner, AR, deploying the MAX 8 from COR to points in the Caribbean, even if at a penalty. CUN, PUJ, AUA, CUR and Cuba are all options. The airline has said as much; it sees the Caribbean as the logical short term area of expansion on the international network, and the MAX 8 is the key to that expansion. AR also has a nice hub at COR that provides feed to/from pretty much every major city in Argentina, bypassing BUE.

Realistically speaking, there are as many chances of AM flying to points in Argentina other than Buenos Aires than there are chances of AR flying to GDL or MTY.

Incidentally, Andes already operates a very successful weekly flight from COR to Samana in the DR. This coming summer it will switch to Casa de Campo/La Romana. The flight is sold by 3 Cordoba-based wholesalers. The flight is at the operational limit of the 738 performance and the airline says it only sells 160 out of 189 seats. It also says they could sell a bit more seats but they point to the flight operational record that has only diverted once in a year of operations, and that was to Andes base in SLA to refuel out of an abundance of caution due to storms @ COR.

I fully agree. I think the whole point of abrelosojos' post and what I tried to clarify is that AM will need to open more long-haul routes (either extra frequencies in existing ones, brand new routes like the so much touted PEK, or reinstating ones that were cancelled in the past if possible such as BCN and GIG) in order for the 737MAX aircraft that will be joining the fleet soon to feed those new routes.

As for Argentina, I think a first step would be to phase out the 77E and find ways to cooperate more with AR. Somewhere between 7 to 11/12 weekly nonstops between MEX and EZE by AM on a combo of 788s and 789s seems right depending on the season.

dcajet wrote:

EddieDude wrote:

Alex was not implying AM should fly the MAX to Argentina.

Realistically speaking, there are as many chances of AM flying to points in Argentina other than Buenos Aires than there are chances of AR flying to GDL or MTY

To bring the topic back CM to Argentina, Lets see what happens with AM to Argentina when CM gets to add more frequencies/airports in Argentina and on the Mexican side: PTY-GDL/MTY go double daily, CM gets to add PTY-TLC and increases frequencies to CUN (departures/arrival for all PTY hub banks).
IMHO, if Brazilian tour operators got CM to open SNU Santa Clara Cuba, hope one day some tour operator convinces CM to open HUX Huatulco and market it in South America.

Any further COPA expansion in Argentina will require a new revision to the Argentina-Panama bilateral, which should not be a problem. With the addition of the additional 3 weekly flights to Mendoza, COPA has reached its allotment of 49 weekly frequencies - 21 to EZE, 14 to COR, 7 to ROS and 7 to MDZ.

Speaking specifically about Argentina, COPA has said that it would like to take EZE to 4 - 5 daily flights from the current 3 when the next round of expansion happens. COPA has also mentioned it is looking at destinations such as BRC - gate to Argentina's lake and ski districts, which is out of 737-800 range from PTY, so the range of the MAX would be needed there.

2travel2know2 wrote:

CM gets to add PTY-TLC

Nobody wants to fly to TLC.

2travel2know2 wrote:

if Brazilian tour operators got CM to open SNU Santa Clara Cuba, hope one day some tour operator convinces CM to open HUX Huatulco and market it in South America.

Who in Brazil would want to go to Huatulco? That is not realistic. Puerto Escondido (which has its own airport: PXM) would be a bit more interesting to Brazilian tourists, but we are still talking about minimal numbers. Brazil has a plethora of wonderful beaches... why would anyone in the Brazilian cities served by CM want to fly more than 10 hours with one stop to visit Huatulco?

Argentina seems like a good MAX 8 market to penetrate deeper into Argentina (as well as to SFO and SCL) without restriction. The MAX 9 should be shifted to MAX 10 for services to GIG, GRU, MEX, LAX, and JFK.

As for Argentina, would maybe a 4x weekly service to Bahia Blanca on a MAX 8 be profitable for CM, with all Argentina service shifted to the 737 MAX 8 when enough are in? The longest runway there is 8579 feet.

dcajet wrote:

Any further COPA expansion in Argentina will require a new revision to the Argentina-Panama bilateral, which should not be a problem. With the addition of the additional 3 weekly flights to Mendoza, COPA has reached its allotment of 49 weekly frequencies - 21 to EZE, 14 to COR, 7 to ROS and 7 to MDZ.

Speaking specifically about Argentina, COPA has said that it would like to take EZE to 4 - 5 daily flights from the current 3 when the next round of expansion happens. COPA has also mentioned it is looking at destinations such as BRC - gate to Argentina's lake and ski districts, which is out of 737-800 range from PTY, so the range of the MAX would be needed there.

That is actually correct. The Panamanian - Argentine bilateral sets 49 frequencies to be divided between nations. However, and as there is no interest in the Argentine carriers to fly to Panama, Copa has requested to fly all frequencies. The agreement also specifies that the alloted frequencies to EZE should not be more than 21. Copa indeed needs more capacity in EZE, which would also require a renegotiation of the bilateral. But, incredibly (or not so much) the opposition to that is the Argentine government itself - probably due to political timing.

2travel2know2 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

EddieDude wrote:

Alex was not implying AM should fly the MAX to Argentina.

Realistically speaking, there are as many chances of AM flying to points in Argentina other than Buenos Aires than there are chances of AR flying to GDL or MTY

To bring the topic back CM to Argentina, Lets see what happens with AM to Argentina when CM gets to add more frequencies/airports in Argentina and on the Mexican side: PTY-GDL/MTY go double daily, CM gets to add PTY-TLC and increases frequencies to CUN (departures/arrival for all PTY hub banks).
IMHO, if Brazilian tour operators got CM to open SNU Santa Clara Cuba, hope one day some tour operator convinces CM to open HUX Huatulco and market it in South America.

CM has already had a shot at several other Mexican secondary cities and even with its business model, which can stand low density secondary markets. VSA/PBC were cancelled in over a year of operation, having started daily with 737-800 aircraft and as time went by was rolled back to a 737-700 and to 4x weekly ops.

SNU is already operated by CM (5x weekly). It's a hugely popular destination from Deep SAM bases. CM also operates Holguin (HOG - 2x weekly) with E190.

The trouble I see with the comparison between AM and CM is that AM can become a Global player (should it decide to), while CM can only be a regional/continental player and hope to stablish links between airlines in order to expand their presence while feeding international flights. AM simply hasn't got the right hub (due to H&H restrictions) to have a good and suitable fleet for secondary markets. AM could rely on a partner like AR (which they are doing) in order to feed their flights, although not as it would be needed.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

Boeing and CM had finalized an order for 61 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 airplanes. The Panamanian flagship airline will use the 737 MAX to replace existing airplanes later.

You can add 15 Boeing 737 MAX 10 to that mix.

EddieDude wrote:

2travel2know2 wrote:
CM gets to add PTY-TLC

Nobody wants to fly to TLC.

Only VW executives.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Argentina seems like a good MAX 8 market to penetrate deeper into Argentina (as well as to SFO and SCL) without restriction. The MAX 9 should be shifted to MAX 10 for services to GIG, GRU, MEX, LAX, and JFK.

As for Argentina, would maybe a 4x weekly service to Bahia Blanca on a MAX 8 be profitable for CM, with all Argentina service shifted to the 737 MAX 8 when enough are in? The longest runway there is 8579 feet.

EZE is in dire need of extra capacity although CM might want to look close before adding too much extra capacity not to lower yields. EZE is one of CM's stars. MAX 9 should do the trick as it shouldn't be limited to reach this far south in maximum capacity.

Brazil is a completely different animal, with 92+ weekly flights to all destinations (plus more coming soon), CM needs to balance the ASMs carefully. Although GRU might take the MAX 10 without a hitch, GIG might not be as expected - for example. The MAX 10 would add probable around 50 more seats to the current configuration. That represents 30% increase in ASMs.

BHI is out of the question. There's no critical demand. SLA or TUC would actually be first.

Saludos,
Gastón

MD11junkie wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Any further COPA expansion in Argentina will require a new revision to the Argentina-Panama bilateral, which should not be a problem. With the addition of the additional 3 weekly flights to Mendoza, COPA has reached its allotment of 49 weekly frequencies - 21 to EZE, 14 to COR, 7 to ROS and 7 to MDZ.

Speaking specifically about Argentina, COPA has said that it would like to take EZE to 4 - 5 daily flights from the current 3 when the next round of expansion happens. COPA has also mentioned it is looking at destinations such as BRC - gate to Argentina's lake and ski districts, which is out of 737-800 range from PTY, so the range of the MAX would be needed there.

That is actually correct. The Panamanian - Argentine bilateral sets 49 frequencies to be divided between nations. However, and as there is no interest in the Argentine carriers to fly to Panama, Copa has requested to fly all frequencies. The agreement also specifies that the alloted frequencies to EZE should not be more than 21. Copa indeed needs more capacity in EZE, which would also require a renegotiation of the bilateral. But, incredibly (or not so much) the opposition to that is the Argentine government itself - probably due to political timing.

2travel2know2 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Realistically speaking, there are as many chances of AM flying to points in Argentina other than Buenos Aires than there are chances of AR flying to GDL or MTY

To bring the topic back CM to Argentina, Lets see what happens with AM to Argentina when CM gets to add more frequencies/airports in Argentina and on the Mexican side: PTY-GDL/MTY go double daily, CM gets to add PTY-TLC and increases frequencies to CUN (departures/arrival for all PTY hub banks).
IMHO, if Brazilian tour operators got CM to open SNU Santa Clara Cuba, hope one day some tour operator convinces CM to open HUX Huatulco and market it in South America.

CM has already had a shot at several other Mexican secondary cities and even with its business model, which can stand low density secondary markets. VSA/PBC were cancelled in over a year of operation, having started daily with 737-800 aircraft and as time went by was rolled back to a 737-700 and to 4x weekly ops.

SNU is already operated by CM (5x weekly). It's a hugely popular destination from Deep SAM bases. CM also operates Holguin (HOG - 2x weekly) with E190.

The trouble I see with the comparison between AM and CM is that AM can become a Global player (should it decide to), while CM can only be a regional/continental player and hope to stablish links between airlines in order to expand their presence while feeding international flights. AM simply hasn't got the right hub (due to H&H restrictions) to have a good and suitable fleet for secondary markets. AM could rely on a partner like AR (which they are doing) in order to feed their flights, although not as it would be needed.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

Boeing and CM had finalized an order for 61 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 airplanes. The Panamanian flagship airline will use the 737 MAX to replace existing airplanes later.

You can add 15 Boeing 737 MAX 10 to that mix.

EddieDude wrote:

2travel2know2 wrote:
CM gets to add PTY-TLC

Nobody wants to fly to TLC.

Only VW executives.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Argentina seems like a good MAX 8 market to penetrate deeper into Argentina (as well as to SFO and SCL) without restriction. The MAX 9 should be shifted to MAX 10 for services to GIG, GRU, MEX, LAX, and JFK.

As for Argentina, would maybe a 4x weekly service to Bahia Blanca on a MAX 8 be profitable for CM, with all Argentina service shifted to the 737 MAX 8 when enough are in? The longest runway there is 8579 feet.

EZE is in dire need of extra capacity although CM might want to look close before adding too much extra capacity not to lower yields. EZE is one of CM's stars. MAX 9 should do the trick as it shouldn't be limited to reach this far south in maximum capacity.

Brazil is a completely different animal, with 92+ weekly flights to all destinations (plus more coming soon), CM needs to balance the ASMs carefully. Although GRU might take the MAX 10 without a hitch, GIG might not be as expected - for example. The MAX 10 would add probable around 50 more seats to the current configuration. That represents 30% increase in ASMs.

BHI is out of the question. There's no critical demand. SLA or TUC would actually be first.

Saludos,
Gastón

Staying on the topic of EZE then, with an auxiliary tank, the range of the 737 MAX 10 would be 3215 nmi. I can now see why CM desires the MAX 9 over the MAX 10...(with the aux tank, the MAX 9 has the same range as the MAX 8; however, the MAX 10 could carry close to 200 passengers per plane). Could the MAX 10 do EZE to PTY without a significant penalty? Going off topic to GRU, I suggested the MAX 10 there because GRU is heavily slot restricted, requiring bigger planes.

Crazy idea: Could the MAXes reach BRC? Maybe a seasonal flight, with some government support...

Can the flights work?

SonOfABeech wrote:

Crazy idea: Could the MAXes reach BRC? Maybe a seasonal flight, with some government support...

I don't really see BRC as a potential destination. Does anyone have data on how many PPDEW from the US to BRC there are? US passengers would the only ones to be targeted - as brazilians have way better options at getting around than via PTY.

abrelosojos wrote:

Can the flights work?

Which flights do you mean, Alex?

Saludos,
Gastón

MD11junkie wrote:

SonOfABeech wrote:

Crazy idea: Could the MAXes reach BRC? Maybe a seasonal flight, with some government support...

I don't really see BRC as a potential destination. Does anyone have data on how many PPDEW from the US to BRC there are? US passengers would the only ones to be targeted - as brazilians have way better options at getting around than via PTY.

Saludos,
Gastón

It certainly is a very niche route; Patagonia is not what one would call "massive tourism/affordable destination", particularly BRC during ski high season. As a destination from other places in the Americas other than the US (Canada, Mexico, Colombia) it'd need to be developed. targeting high income travelers. The BRC area has long been a favorite of very wealthy Americans that either own land there or just visit (Ted Turner, The Obamas, Jane Fonda and other Hollywood movers and shakers...) Even current US Sec of State, Rex Tillerson is spending this weekend with his family in Bariloche on a private visit. But, hey, those folks don't travel by COPA...

One needs to watch LATAM in this space. LATAM Chile already flies seasonally to BRC from SCL and connections; it'd be interesting to see how successful the flight is.

In any case a potential PTY-BRC flight is out of the range of the 737NG to make it commercially viable - and even the MAX may be close to it. It has to got to be an 8 hour flight from PTY.

MD11junkie wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

Can the flights work?

Which flights do you mean, Alex?

Saludos,
Gastón

= I meant, before getting cut off, MX to Argentina secondary on low frequencies should be able to work as long as flights such as LAX, CUN, etc. connect within 1-2 hours.

MD11junkie wrote:

The trouble I see with the comparison between AM and CM is that AM can become a Global player (should it decide to), while CM can only be a regional/continental player and hope to stablish links between airlines in order to expand their presence while feeding international flights. AM simply hasn't got the right hub (due to H&H restrictions) to have a good and suitable fleet for secondary markets. AM could rely on a partner like AR (which they are doing) in order to feed their flights, although not as it would be needed.

Saludos,
Gastón[/quote]

= This is another very good point. The AM alliance team should be very active in pursuing a relationship with AR and like AZ/AR JV solidify the relationship. I don't know why they have been so focussed just on Delta.

EddieDude wrote:

I fully agree. I think the whole point of abrelosojos' post and what I tried to clarify is that AM will need to open more long-haul routes (either extra frequencies in existing ones, brand new routes like the so much touted PEK, or reinstating ones that were cancelled in the past if possible such as BCN and GIG) in order for the 737MAX aircraft that will be joining the fleet soon to feed those new routes.

As for Argentina, I think a first step would be to phase out the 77E and find ways to cooperate more with AR. Somewhere between 7 to 11/12 weekly nonstops between MEX and EZE by AM on a combo of 788s and 789s seems right depending on the season.

= This is exactly right and what I was trying to say. With 70 of these Max's coming, where will AM fly to? I think it would be incredibly dumb if Delta forces them to add to USA flights as open skies must have destroyed yields. The Max routes must be fed by long haul and so I think the little 787 order is also very weak. AM must try new things otherwise they will feel pressure from the local guys on Volaris and other markets. To be honest, I have been very disappointed with the AM planning team. One would think with Delta onboard they would get pressure to get some smarter people, but it seems like the same guy who has been leading their planning team for like the last 5-6 years and the same lack of any creativity. I think the only bold decision was Seoul which may lose in the short term, but is needed for long term.

Saludos,
Alex

One problem with connections at any Mexican airport is the fact that Mexico, much like the US, makes transit passengers go thru immigration & customs before getting on their connecting international flights (e.g. EZE to LAX or SFO via MEX).

I also wonder if Mexican airports are even prepared for such connection traffic - thinking of MEX with its two separate terminals. Not the best set up for changing flights.

dcajet wrote:

One problem with connections at any Mexican airport is the fact that Mexico, much like the US, makes transit passengers go thru immigration & customs before getting on their connecting international flights (e.g. EZE to LAX or SFO via MEX).

I also wonder if Mexican airports are even prepared for such connection traffic - thinking of MEX with its two separate terminals. Not the best set up for changing flights.

= Isn't all AM flights located in terminal 1? I think people would be ok to connect at AM airports.

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

dcajet wrote:

One problem with connections at any Mexican airport is the fact that Mexico, much like the US, makes transit passengers go thru immigration & customs before getting on their connecting international flights (e.g. EZE to LAX or SFO via MEX).

I also wonder if Mexican airports are even prepared for such connection traffic - thinking of MEX with its two separate terminals. Not the best set up for changing flights.

= Isn't all AM flights located in terminal 1? I think people would be ok to connect at AM airports.

Saludos,
Alex

Actually, AM operates from Terminal 2, which is on the other side of the airport from Terminal 1, where most other airlines operate. I believe LATAM and Delta also operate from Terminal 2. There is a train that connects both - never took it.

To be honest, I was not even thinking of same/different terminal connections. Having only transferred there twice, and in the same terminal, it is just not a pleasant user experience. Perhaps with the new airport, MEX can improve that experience. Focus group of one: I just would not do it again (SFO/MEX/EZE and return).

PTY is streets ahead of MEX as a transfer point, not only geographically, but as an overall experience per se. COPA makes most of its living out of the transfers business and it shows. AM doesn't seem to be in the same league yet, clearly.

dcajet wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

dcajet wrote:

One problem with connections at any Mexican airport is the fact that Mexico, much like the US, makes transit passengers go thru immigration & customs before getting on their connecting international flights (e.g. EZE to LAX or SFO via MEX).

I also wonder if Mexican airports are even prepared for such connection traffic - thinking of MEX with its two separate terminals. Not the best set up for changing flights.

= Isn't all AM flights located in terminal 1? I think people would be ok to connect at AM airports.

Saludos,
Alex

Actually, AM operates from Terminal 2, which is on the other side of the airport from Terminal 1, where most other airlines operate. I believe LATAM and Delta also operate from Terminal 2. There is a train that connects both - never took it.

To be honest, I was not even thinking of same/different terminal connections. Having only transferred there twice, and in the same terminal, it is just not a pleasant user experience. Perhaps with the new airport, MEX can improve that experience. Focus group of one: I just would not do it again (SFO/MEX/EZE and return).

PTY is streets ahead of MEX as a transfer point, not only geographically, but as an overall experience per se. COPA makes most of its living out of the transfers business and it shows. AM doesn't seem to be in the same league yet, clearly.

= Yes, you're right. It is Terminal 2. Of course, CM has a better connection product. O&D Panama is miniscule. I have never transited on AM, so trust your version of the truth. However, in-flight, AM is by far a better product, and I would argue, the best Latin American airline product. You couldn't pay me to fly 2 737 J class flights from LAX to EZE when I can fly AM's 787's.

All of it does not matter anyways until AM planning actually gets bold enough to do things differently.

On a separate note, when does new MEX airport open?

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

dcajet wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

= Isn't all AM flights located in terminal 1? I think people would be ok to connect at AM airports.

Saludos,
Alex

Actually, AM operates from Terminal 2, which is on the other side of the airport from Terminal 1, where most other airlines operate. I believe LATAM and Delta also operate from Terminal 2. There is a train that connects both - never took it.

To be honest, I was not even thinking of same/different terminal connections. Having only transferred there twice, and in the same terminal, it is just not a pleasant user experience. Perhaps with the new airport, MEX can improve that experience. Focus group of one: I just would not do it again (SFO/MEX/EZE and return).

PTY is streets ahead of MEX as a transfer point, not only geographically, but as an overall experience per se. COPA makes most of its living out of the transfers business and it shows. AM doesn't seem to be in the same league yet, clearly.

= Yes, you're right. It is Terminal 2. Of course, CM has a better connection product. O&D Panama is miniscule. I have never transited on AM, so trust your version of the truth. However, in-flight, AM is by far a better product, and I would argue, the best Latin American airline product. You couldn't pay me to fly 2 737 J class flights from LAX to EZE when I can fly AM's 787's.

All of it does not matter anyways until AM planning actually gets bold enough to do things differently.

On a separate note, when does new MEX airport open?

Saludos,
Alex

I would not say it is AM so much as the ACM the issue. The place was just not designed with connections in mind.There is that needless immigration and customs processing while on transit. And to add insult to injury, the Mexican authorities get a bit fussy with flights arriving from South America, be them from SCL, EZE GRU, LIM or BOG and, at least when I transited there, were checking with dogs pretty much everything that walked off from these flights. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass. And somehow cheeky considering the country's own involvement in certain trades..

And while I realize this is purely a matter of personal taste/opinion, I thought AM's inflight product left something to be desired. As did the crews - they clearly could not be bothered much with us, customers. I find LATAM & Avianca to be ahead in this department.

No clue about the new MEX.

Regards,

L.

Last week I did MEX-EZE on the old 772 and then GRU-MEX on a shiny 789, while there are issues with their soft product (crew is mostly rude and food is barely edible), I find the hard product of the new fleet (the last 772 are schedule to leave next week) very appealing and better than most products of the region like CM's 737, cramped AV 787´s (or old A320's), AA's 77W or dated AR A340...

Mexico to Argentina is a goldmine for AM with high fares (much higher than SCL and GRU) and healthy load factors even when they had the old and inferior product because there is very little competition, EZE-CUN goes mostly with CM/LATAM/AR. I think that AM has a very low incentive to expand service due to concerns about yields and zero competition.

AM has two frequencies aimed for different markets: day flight for connections to Asia and night time for business travelers.

One thing that can disrupt the market might be Volaris (through their new hub at SJO) or Interjet (a light loaded A321neo might be the answer from CUN).

adnoguez wrote:

Last week I did MEX-EZE on the old 772 and then GRU-MEX on a shiny 789, while there are issues with their soft product (crew is mostly rude and food is barely edible), I find the hard product of the new fleet (the last 772 are schedule to leave next week) very appealing and better than most products of the region like CM's 737, cramped AV 787´s (or old A320's), AA's 77W or dated AR A340...

Mexico to Argentina is a goldmine for AM with high fares (much higher than SCL and GRU) and healthy load factors even when they had the old and inferior product because there is very little competition, EZE-CUN goes mostly with CM/LATAM/AR. I think that AM has a very low incentive to expand service due to concerns about yields and zero competition.

AM has two frequencies aimed for different markets: day flight for connections to Asia and night time for business travelers.

One thing that can disrupt the market might be Volaris (through their new hub at SJO) or Interjet (a light loaded A321neo might be the answer from CUN).

Watch the COR-CUN space. It can be done with the MAX 8 and I am told it will be on the cards once AR gets hold of more frames. There are currently three on the fleet, with two more arriving before April. The remaining nine should arrive in 2019. BTW, AR just announced COR-PUJ today, so CUN fits into that pattern.

No more of AR's intra-Americas flights are operated by the A343s. They are all on the A332s until MAY, when PUJ goes to the 7M8 - daily. The two remaining 340s are dedicated to the MAD route and have received the upgraded new cabins and AVOD entertainment product, called Bravo! They might occasionally pop up as backups on some of the Americas' services.

Seems that now this topic changed to air-routes between Mexico and Argentina.

2travel2know2 wrote:

Seems that now this topic changed to air-routes between Mexico and Argentina.

= Well, any discussion of COPA and growth in Argentina, must include Mexico no? I mean, COPA is not adding service to Panama to support the huge Panamanian local market .

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

2travel2know2 wrote:

Seems that now this topic changed to air-routes between Mexico and Argentina.

= Well, any discussion of COPA and growth in Argentina, must include Mexico no? I mean, COPA is not adding service to Panama to support the huge Panamanian local market .

Saludos,
Alex

Of course, all that is about CM growth is because its traffic to/from México, whatever CM traffic gets between South America and USA/Canada is barely icing on the cake.