Effective Oct. 27, Iberia will add extra frequencies to the following cities in its main long haul market, Latin America:

EZE: goes to 17 weekly from the current 14, 3 additional flights with the 19J/269 A332, remaining 14 with the A346

IB6849 MAD 09:00 EZE 17:55 235 332
IB6848 EZE 19:45 MAD 11:55+1 235 332

GIG: goes to 5 from the current 4 frequencies, A333

MEX: goes to 17 weekly from the current 14, all flights with the A346

SCL goes to 10 weekly from the current 7 flights, A346

Will Iberia increase its services to BOG? There were rumors that it was going to increase the route from 7 weekly frequencies to 10 all operated with the Airbus A340-600

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Will Iberia increase its services to BOG? There were rumors that it was going to increase the route from 7 weekly frequencies to 10 all operated with the Airbus A340-600

Not on this round of additional flights.

GUA/SAL goes daily as well. MGA is temporarily suspended.

Just a random question: is there any particular reason why Iberia seems not to have any short flight numbers but only uses 4 digit numbers?
All their TATL flight numbers are 6XXX and I never quite understood why they wouldn't use shorter numbers. Most other airlines keep the very high numbers for codeshare flights but not Iberia. Is this just a Spanish quirk?

LH748 wrote:

Just a random question: is there any particular reason why Iberia seems not to have any short flight numbers but only uses 4 digit numbers?
All their TATL flight numbers are 6XXX and I never quite understood why they wouldn't use shorter numbers. Most other airlines keep the very high numbers for codeshare flights but not Iberia. Is this just a Spanish quirk?

Many other airlines in the world do this, including those from Mainland China, the US3, LATAM Brazil, for example. It's up to airline preferences really.

Michael

That means that Madrid - Buenos Aires will be up to 6 daily this winter season (3 IB + 2 AR + 1 UX) and Madrid - Mexico will be up to 5 daily (3 IB + 2 AM) with probably back to up to 6 daily in summer (3 IB + 3 AM)

Demand in MAD-EZE is endless having closed 2017 with 815k passengers. The 2nd European route from EZE was FCO with 284k. If Norwegian ever enters MAD-EZE, the 1 million mark might not be unfeasible in a few years.

Good news for them. But every single time i read news like this im tempted to buy them a global map so they could see there r more places for opening new routes....n the same goes for ux.

It is less risky to add more flights to a well-established destination. Before BA launched new destinations in the US, they quite "maxed out" the demand in trunk routes like JFK. And UX tries from time to time those secondary markets, like Iguazú or San Pedro Sula.

In any case, LatAm is not North America with thriving secondary cities like in the US/Canada. Wealth/business is heavily concentrated in capital cities or major urban centers like GRU. There is not much else feasible to be launched from Madrid in Latin America:

- Mexico: MTY / GDL: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually
- Nicaragua: MGA: launch cancelled b/c of the turmoil there
- Colombia: CTG: already mentioned by UX. It will happen eventually
- Brazil: BSB: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually when the Brazilian economy fully recovers

SCQ83 wrote:

It is less risky to add more flights to a well-established destination. Before BA launched new destinations in the US, they quite "maxed out" the demand in trunk routes like JFK. And UX tries from time to time those secondary markets, like Iguazú or San Pedro Sula.

In any case, LatAm is not North America with thriving secondary cities like in the US/Canada. Wealth/business is heavily concentrated in capital cities or major urban centers like GRU. There is not much else feasible to be launched from Madrid in Latin America:

- Mexico: MTY / GDL: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually
- Nicaragua: MGA: launch cancelled b/c of the turmoil there
- Colombia: CTG: already mentioned by UX. It will happen eventually
- Brazil: BSB: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually when the Brazilian economy fully recovers

Add to that the resumption of GYE, + ASU/VVI

SCQ83 wrote:

It is less risky to add more flights to a well-established destination. Before BA launched new destinations in the US, they quite "maxed out" the demand in trunk routes like JFK. And UX tries from time to time those secondary markets, like Iguazú or San Pedro Sula.

In any case, LatAm is not North America with thriving secondary cities like in the US/Canada. Wealth/business is heavily concentrated in capital cities or major urban centers like GRU. There is not much else feasible to be launched from Madrid in Latin America:

- Mexico: MTY / GDL: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually
- Nicaragua: MGA: launch cancelled b/c of the turmoil there
- Colombia: CTG: already mentioned by UX. It will happen eventually
- Brazil: BSB: already mentioned by IB. It will happen eventually when the Brazilian economy fully recovers

Indeed is less risky, but adding new routes to USA, Japan, Thailand, India or Africa shouldnt be a problem.

dcajet wrote:

Effective Oct. 27, Iberia will add extra frequencies to the following cities in its main long haul market, Latin America:

EZE: goes to 17 weekly from the current 14, 3 additional flights with the 19J/269 A332, remaining 14 with the A346

IB6849 MAD 09:00 EZE 17:55 235 332
IB6848 EZE 19:45 MAD 11:55+1 235 332

GIG: goes to 5 from the current 4 frequencies, A333

MEX: goes to 17 weekly from the current 14, all flights with the A346

SCL goes to 10 weekly from the current 7 flights, A346

A good topic and thanks, although I think it’s been covered on here previously.

Kadish wrote:

Good news for them. But every single time i read news like this im tempted to buy them a global map so they could see there r more places for opening new routes....n the same goes for ux.

Good luck with that. You will need to change the mindset of their passengers who will dish out their dollars only to arrive at a destination that speaks their own language. Most people will not travel to another country that speaks a different language unless they are within a tour group. Hence the hoards of people that travel from the USA to England or the hoards that fly EZE-MAD.

Kadish wrote:

Indeed is less risky, but adding new routes to USA, Japan, Thailand, India or Africa shouldn't be a problem.

But it is a problem.
To go East they are competing directly with the ME3+TK in a market where IB has never been strong.
To Africa not only does the Spanish economy have little penetration but there are few social ties and like the above, it's a market where IB has never been strong. ET is rumored to be dropping the MAD non-stop in favor of LIS and they have a hub in ADD from which to fee so that should tell you how tiny the Spain-Africa market is.
And to the US IAG will always favor routing passengers thru LHR on BA leaving IB to serve only the bigger ones, which they already do.

SCQ83 wrote:

That means that Madrid - Buenos Aires will be up to 6 daily this winter season (3 IB + 2 AR + 1 UX) and Madrid - Mexico will be up to 5 daily (3 IB + 2 AM) with probably back to up to 6 daily in summer (3 IB + 3 AM)

Demand in MAD-EZE is endless having closed 2017 with 815k passengers. The 2nd European route from EZE was FCO with 284k. If Norwegian ever enters MAD-EZE, the 1 million mark might not be unfeasible in a few years.

While not EZE, lets not forget COR which sees UX 6x w, soon to be daily.

Luisvalero wrote:

Add to that the resumption of GYE, + ASU/VVI

The only way you can see IB in ASU or VVI is if UX leaves. Those markets can't support 2 Spanish airlines competing for a tiny piece of pie.

SCQ83 wrote:

Nicaragua: MGA: launch cancelled b/c of the turmoil there

Not unexpected. Given the political and the security situation, it would be unwise to launch flights to MGA at this time, even if that same crew was doing the return to MAD. I just have to think about what people said about CCS, where IB crew cannot even leave the hotels because of the security problems IIRC.

And even if they were launching MGA, wasn't that going to be a triangular flight via GUA anyway? If so, wouldn't the crew change occur in GUA?

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.
About África even with fewer social ties, I think Iberia can do well if they have a good comercial strategy, Spain in very well geographically located for west african destinations.
I agree about North America , I believe Iberia could do a lot more business in North America but the UK has a lot more ties to north america than spain , the same speaks for Spain and Latin América
anyway Iberia still have good oportunities for growth and iberia’s main hub , Barajas airport is a class A aiport in general with still good growth capacity and potential.

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.
About África even with fewer social ties, I think Iberia can do well if they have a good comercial strategy, Spain in very well geographically located for west african destinations.
I agree about North America , I believe Iberia could do a lot more business in North America but the UK has a lot more ties to north america than spain , the same speaks for Spain and Latin América
anyway Iberia still have good oportunities for growth and iberia’s main hub , Barajas airport is a class A aiport in general with still good growth capacity and potential.

dcajet wrote:

The only way you can see IB in ASU or VVI is if UX leaves. Those markets can't support 2 Spanish airlines competing for a tiny piece of pie.

Iberia codeshares with Boliviana de Aviación in BoA's flights from Cochabamba and Santa Cruz de la Sierra to Madrid. That is why Boliviana uses T4.

The Bolivian community in Spain is slightly larger than the Paraguayan and Bolivia being a tourism destination (Salar de Uyuni, etc) creates more traffic and allows two carriers (Air Europa and Boliviana) competing on MAD-VVI.

LTU932 wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

Nicaragua: MGA: launch cancelled b/c of the turmoil there

Not unexpected. Given the political and the security situation, it would be unwise to launch flights to MGA at this time, even if that same crew was doing the return to MAD. I just have to think about what people said about CCS, where IB crew cannot even leave the hotels because of the security problems IIRC.

And even if they were launching MGA, wasn't that going to be a triangular flight via GUA anyway? If so, wouldn't the crew change occur in GUA?

The well being of Iberia's staff is not the decision behind the cancellation of planned service to MGA, as you well say, layover would have been in Guatemala City where Iberia already operates. Any prospect of business that propelled this flight have evaporated and will remain next to nonexistent until Nicaragua's crisis gets sorted. And like in Venezuela, this could take years.

dcajet wrote:

GIG: goes to 5 from the current 4 frequencies, A333

MADGIG is already running 5x weekly on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. So nothing new there.

airlinermiami wrote:

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.

I didn't say it was dropping MAD. I said it was dropping it as a non-stop. The flight will be routed ADD-LIS-MAD-LIS-ADD. MAD will become a tag from the LIS route.

airlinermiami wrote:

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.
About África even with fewer social ties, I think Iberia can do well if they have a good comercial strategy, Spain in very well geographically located for west african destinations.
I agree about North America , I believe Iberia could do a lot more business in North America but the UK has a lot more ties to north america than spain , the same speaks for Spain and Latin América
anyway Iberia still have good oportunities for growth and iberia’s main hub , Barajas airport is a class A aiport in general with still good growth capacity and potential.

I totally agrre with u.
Although France,Belgium...may have more ties to Africa than Spain, they have to send widebodies whereas Ib with the newer 320/1 can cover almost every corner being cheaper to operate...moreover geography is on Ib side n lets be clear not all the traffic is point to point, with a good model im not an expert but I trully think it could work.
Competing with ME3 is a big task but they r not as cheap as they used to be...

About North América I see no less than 4/5 that could work well.

IAG have an extremely conservative strategy and they avoid risk at all cost. They really don't care much about market share, total amount of passengers or number of destinations. All they care about is profit. They found out years ago that they can make the same or more money flying less people to less destinations. Add to that the fact that they buy planes with a dropper, which really doesn't give them much flexibility to grow.

Most of the business opportunities mentioned in this thread could work, but require investment, resources and patience, and IAG prefer to focus on the extra penny they will pay their shareholders next quarter.

SCQ83 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

The only way you can see IB in ASU or VVI is if UX leaves. Those markets can't support 2 Spanish airlines competing for a tiny piece of pie.

Iberia codeshares with Boliviana de Aviación in BoA's flights from Cochabamba and Santa Cruz de la Sierra to Madrid. That is why Boliviana uses T4.

The Bolivian community in Spain is slightly larger than the Paraguayan and Bolivia being a tourism destination (Salar de Uyuni, etc) creates more traffic and allows two carriers (Air Europa and Boliviana) competing on MAD-VVI.

Was not aware IB was codesharing with BoA, that explains then why I've seen their 767s parked at T4. You are correct in that VVI is a larger and wealthier market than ASU, and Bolivia is both a larger source and destination market than Paraguay. That said, I doubt we will see IB's own metal @ VVI. In the 70s/80s IB used to fly to LPB (via LIM, if memory serves) and to ASU (via GIG-EZE), the latter with the DC-10-30s.

dcajet wrote:

LTU932 wrote:

And even if they were launching MGA, wasn't that going to be a triangular flight via GUA anyway? If so, wouldn't the crew change occur in GUA?

The well being of Iberia's staff is not the decision behind the cancellation of planned service to MGA, as you well say, layover would have been in Guatemala City where Iberia already operates. Any prospect of business that propelled this flight have evaporated and will remain next to nonexistent until Nicaragua's crisis gets sorted. And like in Venezuela, this could take years.

I never said the well being was an argument, I was talking about reasons being the political and security situation in Nicaragua. I just mentioned what I recall reading here about IB flight crew being basically forced to stay in their hotels in CCS during their layovers and from what I see, IB still serves CCS. Plus I did not state for a fact that the crew layover would be in GUA, it's just an assumption based on the possible routing of MAD-MGA, which I believe was to be routed through GUA.

Other than that, you are right. Until things settle down, I don't think IB will return with their own metal to MGA, so travellers flying to Europe from MGA will have to rely on connecting (from the top of my head) via PTY, SJO, the US (as long as they have a visa or valid ESTA), and to a lesser degree SAL and GUA. On the other hand, IB must still see a business case for keeping CCS, though many airlines have left CCS in part because of the problem of converting Bolívares into US Dollars or Euros, income they had to write off (not just the continuing escalation in the country). Speaking of which, does IB demand payment exclusively in Euros or US Dollars for flights booked in Venezuela, or do they still accept local currency?

LTU932 wrote:

. Speaking of which, does IB demand payment exclusively in Euros or US Dollars for flights booked in Venezuela, or do they still accept local currency?

No foreign airline sells any tickets in Venezuela unless their are paid with a foreign credit card and priced in hard currency, No local currency is accepted.

A bit off topic, the second 359 has just arrived n first will be used in european routes n after that,where? JFK? Or they will try a south american route?

Kadish wrote:

A bit off topic, the second 359 has just arrived n first will be used in european routes n after that,where? JFK? Or they will try a south american route?

It’ll fly to JFK, as the other A359 in the fleet

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Will Iberia increase its services to BOG? There were rumors that it was going to increase the route from 7 weekly frequencies to 10 all operated with the Airbus A340-600

More than rumours. It was stated by Iberia's CEO. There was a formal application by Iberia to the relevant Spanish authorities: https://www.fomento.gob.es/aviacion-civ ... bia-171115

This was done in November last year and in theory flight would start this October.

That 's not happening, so it would seem that IB decided against increasing service to BOG and the frequency rights that they obtained will expire. They are in a position of disadvantage in this market as Avianca offers nearly 4 times as many flights between Colombia and Spain than IB does.

Kadish wrote:

A bit off topic, the second 359 has just arrived n first will be used in european routes n after that,where? JFK? Or they will try a south american route?

No Latin American destination yet. A few months ago, the evening departure from MAD to EZE showed for a few days as being operated with the A359 but then it was withdrawn. JFK is perfect as IB can do a daily flight with one frame, whereas MEX or EZE require 2 frames to do a daily service. I'd imagine once they have the 3rd and 4th frames in house we will find out which station in Latin America will be the first one to see the A359 - I'd imagine it'll be either EZE or MEX, as they are the 2 top stations both in terms of frequency and volume.

Summa767 wrote:

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Will Iberia increase its services to BOG? There were rumors that it was going to increase the route from 7 weekly frequencies to 10 all operated with the Airbus A340-600

More than rumours. It was stated by Iberia's CEO. There was a formal application by Iberia to the relevant Spanish authorities: https://www.fomento.gob.es/aviacion-civ ... bia-171115

This was done in November last year and in theory flight would start this October.

That 's not happening, so it would seem that IB decided against increasing service to BOG and the frequency rights that they obtained will expire. They are in a position of disadvantage in this market as Avianca offers nearly 4 times as many flights between Colombia and Spain than IB does.

IAG runs a very tight ship, with the focus on profits, not so much on market share or # of frequencies or # of passengers carried. Their goal is not necessarily being the #1 in market share. Also keep in mind Avianca feeds those MAD & BCN flights out of BOG with connections from its regional network - not something Iberia does.

dcajet wrote:

I'd imagine once they have the 3rd and 4th frames in house we will find out which station in Latin America will be the first one to see the A359 - I'd imagine it'll be either EZE or MEX, as they are the 2 top stations both in terms of frequency and volume..

I assume that it will be EZE, or even LIM rather than MEX -for which the A346 will probably be used for a while as the "hot & high" performance of the quad is preferred for destinations such as MEX, BOG and UIO. Having sad that, perhaps IB should see if the A359 has the performance to do a UIO-MAD non-stop rather than using the A346 given the 3 landing incidents it has has there. The latest one being at the new airport, where the affected airplane has been now for 2 weeks.

dcajet wrote:

IAG runs a very tight ship, with the focus on profits, not so much on market share or # of frequencies or # of passengers carried. Their goal is not necessarily being the #1 in market share. Also keep in mind Avianca feeds those MAD & BCN flights out of BOG with connections from its regional network - not something Iberia does.

Whatever the reason, they certainly got cold feet and cancelled the planned increase. AV has the advantage with its local network, but I would have thought that with IB's network at MAD it can reach a multitude of destinations in Europe and beyond that are out of competitive reach for AV (which only serves LHR outside Spain. Munich does not start until late October). But I guess there's also AF, KL and LH that also compete in that market.

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

dcajet wrote:

The well being of Iberia's staff is not the decision behind the cancellation of planned service to MGA, as you well say, layover would have been in Guatemala City where Iberia already operates. Any prospect of business that propelled this flight have evaporated and will remain next to nonexistent until Nicaragua's crisis gets sorted. And like in Venezuela, this could take years.

Apparently IB was also getting some subsidies and with the current turmoil that's also in question.

airlinermiami wrote:

About África even with fewer social ties, I think Iberia can do well if they have a good comercial strategy, Spain in very well geographically located for west african destinations.

In theory MAD should work well for West Africa given its geography but Iberia has tried in the past NKC, ACC, SSG, LOS and LAD and all of the were eventually cancelled. LOS was supposed to be a profitable route but given the currency crisis Iberia decided to first cancel crew overnight to save costs and finally decided to cancel it altogether as it was unable to repatriate funds. BA and other euro carriers keep serving it so I guess it just wasn't exactly a goldmine for IB.

Also apparently those routes were headache for their ops deparment and a constant source of disagreement with the unions as they were operated with the same crew operating the return flight and were in the edge of flight time limits set by the Iberia collective bargaining agreement. LAD was operated with widebodies under an special agreement where the plane arrived in the morning and left in the evening with the same crew to avoid them a lovely stay in Luanda for a few days.

Under IAG Iberia has a return of invested capital target of 15% to be met, which is currently around 12-13%, so I don't think we're going to see IB doing some exotic bets on those ever developing markets of West Africa and will rather keep sticking to develop its bread&butter business in LATAM. RAM and Air France probably got the more extensive network in those West African markets but don't think they're good example when it comes to running a profitable company.

Only Dakar seems to have worked well for Iberia, it was operated with a mix of non-stops and via LPA freqs in the past but now it's a daily non-stop flight. Also IB has just recieved rights for 3 additional weekly frequencies so they should be increasing frequencies soon.

airbazar wrote:

airlinermiami wrote:

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.

I didn't say it was dropping MAD. I said it was dropping it as a non-stop. The flight will be routed ADD-LIS-MAD-LIS-ADD. MAD will become a tag from the LIS route.

If this comes from the Avianews article then I'd take it with a grain of salt as the times they show in the article don't seem to match the departure/arrival banks at ADD if they're going to operate LIS-ADD non-stop.

Kadish wrote:

About North América I see no less than 4/5 that could work well.

Which destionations do you think that could work well from Madrid for Iberia?

US/Canada traffic from MAD is quite seasonal, during summer YYZ, YUL or IAD could work well for IB but outside of that I only see that SFO could have chance work year around.

Summa767 wrote:

I assume that it will be EZE, or even LIM rather than MEX -for which the A346 will probably be used for a while as the "hot & high" performance of the quad is preferred for destinations such as MEX, BOG and UIO. Having sad that, perhaps IB should see if the A359 has the performance to do a UIO-MAD non-stop rather than using the A346 given the 3 landing incidents it has has there. The latest one being at the new airport, where the affected airplane has been now for 2 weeks..

I don't see how the A350-900 should be better to deal with strong winds than the A340-600, I guess they're going to review their ops guidance so the alternative airport is used if wind is over a certain threshold.

Whatever the reason, they certainly got cold feet and cancelled the planned increase. AV has the advantage with its local network, but I would have thought that with IB's network at MAD it can reach a multitude of destinations in Europe and beyond that are out of competitive reach for AV (which only serves LHR outside Spain. Munich does not start until late October). But I guess there's also AF, KL and LH that also compete in that market.

AV has greater success at MAD capturing some lower yielding traffic mostly to Ecuador and Central America than IB does catching ex-BOG traffic to Europe. Maybe IB will wait for S19 to go x10 weekly, previously they have operated BOG x10 during the summer so I was surprised when they announced they'd increase BOG to x10 during winter while keeping it x7 during S18.

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

That won't happen sooner than 2020, at the moment UX got its plate full with starting PTY in and due to the lack of aircraft they're starting IGR as a 2-weekly tag to their MVD flight instead of combining it with a new flight to GIG as was initially announced.

Sorry, can´t recall where, but I read that Iberia won´t send the A359 to MEX and UIO -two of the airline´s top routes- because the plane would struggle to haul all those passengers and freight, an achievement done almost effortlessly by the A340-600. Instead, they remarked that A346s were recently upgraded to offer better services on long haul routes.

julianrv wrote:

[
I don't see how the A350-900 should be better to deal with strong winds than the A340-600, I guess they're going to review their ops guidance so the alternative airport is used if wind is over a certain threshold.
.

That is assuming that the cause of the latest incident is due to the wind alone. Unlikely. We shall have to wait for the report. Ecuador's authority has classed this incident as "serious".
It could be that following standard operating practice alone would have avoided it, but I have also heard that an A346 flare at high airports can lead to "floating" over the runway longer than expected and can lead to a later touch down. I have not looked at the report recently, but the incident that led to the A346 write-off started by a late touch down, and since then IB only operated A343 to Ecuador. The A346 returned with the opening of the new airport, but it's only right that the issues of altitude and A346 are looked at again.

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

I believe that the bilateral between Colombia and Spain does not allow for more frequencies

pipeafcr wrote:

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

I believe that the bilateral between Colombia and Spain does not allow for more frequencies

That is not the reason that IB is not increasing frequencies, As I said above, IB currently holds authority for those 3 extra frequencies but it has decided not to exercise them.
The bilateral allows for 37 weekly frequencies for airline of EACH country. So plenty more available for Iberia if it wanted them. On top of those, there are unlimited frequencies to the likes of CTG, ADZ and BAQ.
AV has maxed out its allowable frequencies for the Colombian side, so unless the bilateral is updated, it cannot open any more flights to Spain, apart from tourist destinations such as Alicante or Canary Islands, which is unlikely.

julianrv wrote:

dcajet wrote:

The well being of Iberia's staff is not the decision behind the cancellation of planned service to MGA, as you well say, layover would have been in Guatemala City where Iberia already operates. Any prospect of business that propelled this flight have evaporated and will remain next to nonexistent until Nicaragua's crisis gets sorted. And like in Venezuela, this could take years.

Apparently IB was also getting some subsidies and with the current turmoil that's also in question.

airlinermiami wrote:

About África even with fewer social ties, I think Iberia can do well if they have a good comercial strategy, Spain in very well geographically located for west african destinations.

In theory MAD should work well for West Africa given its geography but Iberia has tried in the past NKC, ACC, SSG, LOS and LAD and all of the were eventually cancelled. LOS was supposed to be a profitable route but given the currency crisis Iberia decided to first cancel crew overnight to save costs and finally decided to cancel it altogether as it was unable to repatriate funds. BA and other euro carriers keep serving it so I guess it just wasn't exactly a goldmine for IB.

Also apparently those routes were headache for their ops deparment and a constant source of disagreement with the unions as they were operated with the same crew operating the return flight and were in the edge of flight time limits set by the Iberia collective bargaining agreement. LAD was operated with widebodies under an special agreement where the plane arrived in the morning and left in the evening with the same crew to avoid them a lovely stay in Luanda for a few days.

Under IAG Iberia has a return of invested capital target of 15% to be met, which is currently around 12-13%, so I don't think we're going to see IB doing some exotic bets on those ever developing markets of West Africa and will rather keep sticking to develop its bread&butter business in LATAM. RAM and Air France probably got the more extensive network in those West African markets but don't think they're good example when it comes to running a profitable company.

Only Dakar seems to have worked well for Iberia, it was operated with a mix of non-stops and via LPA freqs in the past but now it's a daily non-stop flight. Also IB has just recieved rights for 3 additional weekly frequencies so they should be increasing frequencies soon.

airbazar wrote:

airlinermiami wrote:

Ethiopian is not dropping Madrid is tagging it with Lisbon only for the winter months. Lisbon is seasonal, Madrid is year round.

I didn't say it was dropping MAD. I said it was dropping it as a non-stop. The flight will be routed ADD-LIS-MAD-LIS-ADD. MAD will become a tag from the LIS route.

If this comes from the Avianews article then I'd take it with a grain of salt as the times they show in the article don't seem to match the departure/arrival banks at ADD if they're going to operate LIS-ADD non-stop.

Kadish wrote:

About North América I see no less than 4/5 that could work well.

Which destionations do you think that could work well from Madrid for Iberia?

US/Canada traffic from MAD is quite seasonal, during summer YYZ, YUL or IAD could work well for IB but outside of that I only see that SFO could have chance work year around.

Summa767 wrote:

I assume that it will be EZE, or even LIM rather than MEX -for which the A346 will probably be used for a while as the "hot & high" performance of the quad is preferred for destinations such as MEX, BOG and UIO. Having sad that, perhaps IB should see if the A359 has the performance to do a UIO-MAD non-stop rather than using the A346 given the 3 landing incidents it has has there. The latest one being at the new airport, where the affected airplane has been now for 2 weeks..

I don't see how the A350-900 should be better to deal with strong winds than the A340-600, I guess they're going to review their ops guidance so the alternative airport is used if wind is over a certain threshold.

Whatever the reason, they certainly got cold feet and cancelled the planned increase. AV has the advantage with its local network, but I would have thought that with IB's network at MAD it can reach a multitude of destinations in Europe and beyond that are out of competitive reach for AV (which only serves LHR outside Spain. Munich does not start until late October). But I guess there's also AF, KL and LH that also compete in that market.

AV has greater success at MAD capturing some lower yielding traffic mostly to Ecuador and Central America than IB does catching ex-BOG traffic to Europe. Maybe IB will wait for S19 to go x10 weekly, previously they have operated BOG x10 during the summer so I was surprised when they announced they'd increase BOG to x10 during winter while keeping it x7 during S18.

LatinAirliner wrote:

Rare to see they are not increasing BOG. They are way behind Avianca, and if UX opens CTG, IB will be short there.

That won't happen sooner than 2020, at the moment UX got its plate full with starting PTY in and due to the lack of aircraft they're starting IGR as a 2-weekly tag to their MVD flight instead of combining it with a new flight to GIG as was initially announced.

As you said IB had problems with unions its true but was Long time ago and things have changed a lot. With the new "Ib" and the also the creation of the "new airline" IBX unions r not so powerfull, labor cost are cheaaaaaper so these may allow to open old n new routes.
I Remember some of them with good load factors...N maybe if they stop routing pax through LHR it could work

N for the Routes to USA/CAN maybe PHL,DTW, IAD, SEA...3/4 weekly could work with the newer 321lr in the East coast

By the way, as part of Iberia's expansion in LATAM, they are increasing El Salvador (SAL) from 4x to 7x weekly starting in October. It's the only direct service from SAL to Europe.

Flights will be operated with an A332, perhaps using the aircraft that was going to fly to MGA, which has been cancelled as discussed earlier on this thread.

I think it s also a way to prevent anothwr airline like ux to enter in the market...but for me it's hard to understand why they r not sending the plane to Tokyo where the yields are higher and also good factors...

Kadish wrote:

N for the Routes to USA/CAN maybe PHL,DTW, IAD, SEA...3/4 weekly could work with the newer 321lr in the East coast

PHL is already served in the JV by AA, IAD maybe during the peak summer but I don't see SEA or DTW working at all from MAD.

A321LR is ok to the US East coast from northern european markets but it won't make it from MAD to the US on a hot summer day.

Kadish wrote:

I think it s also a way to prevent anothwr airline like ux to enter in the market...but for me it's hard to understand why they r not sending the plane to Tokyo where the yields are higher and also good factors...

Intial plan was to make GUA daily by operating the current MAD-GUA-SAL-MAD x4 weekly instead of the current x5 and adding the new MAD-GUA-MGA-MAD x3 weekly as it's not possible to operate non-stop from GUA to MAD due to runway lenght. Currently GUA/SAL traffic split is around 60/40.

NRT is already going from x3 to x5 this winter, I agree that Tokyo sure sounds fancier and might be a higher yielding market in general but Madrid geographical position and strong O&D traffic makes it greats to sustain flights to Latinamerican destinations. Given Madrid geography for asians destinations you mostly depend on local traffic and domestic connections to fill the plane unless you're willing to depress yields by offering Asian destinations via MAD like TK sometimes does by offering very low prices on Western Europe-IST-US traffic.

dcajet wrote:

IAG runs a very tight ship, with the focus on profits, not so much on market share or # of frequencies or # of passengers carried. Their goal is not necessarily being the #1 in market share. Also keep in mind Avianca feeds those MAD & BCN flights out of BOG with connections from its regional network - not something Iberia does.

I agree with you and I have explained the same in other threads.

I'd also like to add that I disagree with this strategy. True, next quarter's results may be good, but this approach leaves plenty of room for nimble and less conservative competitors to grow, and become leaders in your markets. If you are not market leader, you lose pricing power, reputation and -arguably- the top customers. Continue with this strategy and you become niche or irrelevant. In this business, when you want to react, it might be too late.

Mex87 wrote:

Sorry, can´t recall where, but I read that Iberia won´t send the A359 to MEX and UIO -two of the airline´s top routes- because the plane would struggle to haul all those passengers and freight, an achievement done almost effortlessly by the A340-600. Instead, they remarked that A346s were recently upgraded to offer better services on long haul routes.

That makes sense. Iberia configured the A359s very dense and those two destinations require more performance for hot and high conditions.

julianrv wrote:

Kadish wrote:

N for the Routes to USA/CAN maybe PHL,DTW, IAD, SEA...3/4 weekly could work with the newer 321lr in the East coast

PHL is already served in the JV by AA, IAD maybe during the peak summer but I don't see SEA or DTW working at all from MAD.

A321LR is ok to the US East coast from northern european markets but it won't make it from MAD to the US on a hot summer day.

Kadish wrote:

I think it s also a way to prevent anothwr airline like ux to enter in the market...but for me it's hard to understand why they r not sending the plane to Tokyo where the yields are higher and also good factors...

Intial plan was to make GUA daily by operating the current MAD-GUA-SAL-MAD x4 weekly instead of the current x5 and adding the new MAD-GUA-MGA-MAD x3 weekly as it's not possible to operate non-stop from GUA to MAD due to runway lenght. Currently GUA/SAL traffic split is around 60/40.

NRT is already going from x3 to x5 this winter, I agree that Tokyo sure sounds fancier and might be a higher yielding market in general but Madrid geographical position and strong O&D traffic makes it greats to sustain flights to Latinamerican destinations. Given Madrid geography for asians destinations you mostly depend on local traffic and domestic connections to fill the plane unless you're willing to depress yields by offering Asian destinations via MAD like TK sometimes does by offering very low prices on Western Europe-IST-US traffic.

According Airbus web, with the newer 321lr from MÁD u can reach easily the East coast, even parts of Cuba or even ORD in USA...I know this data its a bit syfy but easily it can reach the whole east coast...even in Summers.

NRT its not about being fancier but about money. The demand its there...maybe the lack of planes is the reason

Kadish wrote:

I think it s also a way to prevent anothwr airline like ux to enter in the market...but for me it's hard to understand why they r not sending the plane to Tokyo where the yields are higher and also good factors...

I do not have the numbers of IB's ops to Central America or to Japan but more often than not, the less traveled to cities are the ones that tend to be the most profitable as Iberia tends to be the only game in town when it comes to flying to Europe directly. Same applies to some routes to Africa - they can be incredibly profitable. Just think of all the options one has from MAD to Tokyo with a simple connection. Then think of SAL: most connections involve stopping in the USA and dealing with passport controls, etc, You can't beat Iberia to Latin America and they surely charge a premium for that.

dcajet wrote:

Kadish wrote:

I think it s also a way to prevent anothwr airline like ux to enter in the market...but for me it's hard to understand why they r not sending the plane to Tokyo where the yields are higher and also good factors...

I do not have the numbers of IB's ops to Central America or to Japan but more often than not, the less traveled to cities are the ones that tend to be the most profitable as Iberia tends to be the only game in town when it comes to flying to Europe directly. Same applies to some routes to Africa - they can be incredibly profitable. Just think of all the options one has from MAD to Tokyo with a simple connection. Then think of SAL: most connections involve stopping in the USA and dealing with passport controls, etc, You can't beat Iberia to Latin America and they surely charge a premium for that.

I see the logic in ur opinion but if that is true why ux for instance opens routes that r already flown by Ib like the last one in Panamá? If ur theory were right they shoul open sth new in Kenia, China,India (silly examples)...where nobody fly

Good to see IB continuing its growth despite UX's serious consolidation as a formidable competitor in the South Atlantic. I predict EZE and MEX going 3x daily soon. Further consolidation in large markets like BOG, LIM and GIG needs to happen if they want to keep being the most important player on Latam-Europe routes.

Regarding BOG, please remember IB did have seasonal increases where it want 10x weekly with the A346 in the past. They have since decentralized their operation to offer 3x weekly flights to MDE, which partly explains why the season BOG increase never came back.

However, the Colombian market (and LatAm in general) have grown exponentially since then.

Avianca is eating their lunch (some have pointed that AV has a significant amount of connecting traffic ex-Colombia and the region but IB also has significant connecting traffic ex Europe and a connecting partner in BOG with LA, whereas AV does not have a connecting partner in MAD). It is also not entirely true that Avianca captures only low-yeilding traffic. At least ex-Colombia, IB's fares are consistently much cheaper than AV's (which offers significantly more capacity flying 20x weekly BOG-MAD, daily BOG-BCN, daily CLO-MAD and 3x weekly MDE-MAD vs IB's daily BOG-MAD and 3x weekly MDE-MAD).

Even UX now has the same frequency ex-BOG than IB.

IB and IAG fell asleep for years and growth is only coming at a time when their competition is either stepping on their toes (UX, AM) or has won the battle (AV) in many of IB's core markets.

After reading this entire thread I come to the conclusion that there is a definite role for the A380 at IB due to the sheer volume of traffic and its concentration and the topography.