Recently, passing through the T1-T2-T3 terminal complex at Madrid Barajas I was astonished to see how active and busy it is with Air Europa operations. Not quite Iberia at T4-T5, yet the place was vibrant with scores of B737 and E190 european and domestic flights with some wide-bodies going to Mallorca and Islas Canarias.

Is Spain the only country in Europe which is able to support two full-sized airlines? The LH-AB duopoly failed in Germany, yet IB-UX seems to function somehow, despite the competition from Ryanair and Easyjet also present at Madrid and Barcelona.

Well, all three Scandinavian countries has a strong presence of both Norwegian and SAS. I think Norwegian had almost 100 planes before they started expansion beyond Scandinavia. On the other hand Easyjet is a small player on the market and Ryanair almost non existent.

MAD has always managed somehow to have a 2nd or 3rd carrier focused on Europe-LatAm flights (Air Comet, Air Madrid, etc).

I think what makes comparatively easy for MAD to have two long-haul carriers, is that MAD-LatAm is way way bigger than any other European airport. You could say London-US is massive and the largest Europe-US market, but then Paris-US or Frankfurt-US are massive as well.

Also Iberia is quite limited on its growth due to aircraft deliveries and they have been diversifying their portfolio (LEVEL, PVG, NRT, JNB, etc).

IMO Air Europa works (still) because they are part of a larger group (Globalia) and they can always get the bottom of the barrel fares and the leftovers from Iberia. But whenever they try to enter mature markets, they always fail. For instance, MAD-BOS? Failed. MAD-GVA? Failed.

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO Air Europa works (still) because they are part of a larger group (Globalia) and they can always get the bottom of the barrel fares and the leftovers from Iberia. But whenever they try to enter mature markets, they always fail. For instance, MAD-BOS? Failed. MAD-GVA? Failed.

All Airlines have routes that are tried, but under-perform and are closed as a result.

- BA LHR-CTU is a wonderful IAG example.

Air Europe now operates MAD-AMS daily with A332/B787 and daily B738, widebody aircraft regularly operate MAD-ORY as well, no failure there apparently.

UX have 27 B787 on order.....10 now in operation.....is near to be a big carrier.

factsonly wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO Air Europa works (still) because they are part of a larger group (Globalia) and they can always get the bottom of the barrel fares and the leftovers from Iberia. But whenever they try to enter mature markets, they always fail. For instance, MAD-BOS? Failed. MAD-GVA? Failed.

All Airlines have routes that are tried, but under-perform and are closed as a result.

- BA LHR-CTU is a wonderful IAG example.

Air Europe now operates MAD-AMS daily with A332/B787 and daily B738, widebody aircraft regularly operate MAD-ORY as well, no failure there apparently.

I mentioned "mature markets". Chengdu is not a mature market (I am not going to discuss Chinese carriers giving tickets away to Europe). Boston and Geneva are mature, wealthy markets. Even since, LEVEL (Iberia) has launched BCN-BOS and Swiss is increasing services on ZRH-MAD and GVA-MAD https://www.swiss.com/corporate/en/medi ... e-20180620 So the market is there but UX is not able to tap it.

It would also be interesting to see who flies in those MAD-Europe flights. Most of them are 2 daily, purely for connections. Not able to compete with Iberia and the national carrier on the other side (Swiss, Lufthansa, Brussels, etc). I have flown some of those routes and most (the overwhelming) majority seemed to be tourist and VFR PAX on connections to LATAM. Prices can be very low. My record is a MAD-BRU for 40 euros... purchased the day before. Not even Ryanair can beat those prices.

BA/VS are pretty big out of UK so no Spain isn't the only country with two large full service carriers.

The LATAM market is very lucrative, particularly from Spain: that's why Iberia an Air Europa co-exist.

Air Europa biggest problem is, that they aren't in the DL/AF/KLM/Alitalia north Atlantic JV. That's why Boston failed. BTW Boston, even though you call it a mature market... it's not. It is a "market" that heavily relies on corporate contracts - the reason why IB and LEVEL are now offering the flight year round (W18/19 is the first time IB offers BOS from Madrid - the previous year they stopped 31st dec until 1st of march). Without corporate contracts and not part of a JV (LEVEL, via IB, is part of the JV), BOS is a very challenging Transatlantic market.

I believe your "mature market" hypothesis SCQ83 doesn't have enough arguments to support it. Bogota is one example - heavy competition, others are Oporto, Lisbon, Tel-Aviv, Düsseldorf... and Air Europa has settled.

And, of course, there's nothing wrong in flying short and medium haul routes to fill your long haul flights... even if you sell OD for peanuts - better to fill the seat than flying empty. BTW, Iberia also offers very attractive prices on that route, whenever there's no EU activity in Brussels.

Competition is the best "asset" customers can have.

tobsw wrote:

I believe your "mature market" hypothesis SCQ83 doesn't have enough arguments to support it. Bogota is one example - heavy competition, others are Oporto, Lisbon, Tel-Aviv, Düsseldorf... and Air Europa has settled

They are unable to develop any European market further than a couple of daily flights for "connections". The only exceptions are ORY and AMS because of AFKL and Skyteam.

OPO and LIS are one hour from Madrid, and MAD has a massive comparative advantage to any other European hub for flights to the Americas (with Portugal-Americas itself being a major market) and they can fly any Embraer there.

Tel Aviv - Americas is also a very large market (btw, Air Europa is one daily and Iberia/El Al - codeshare - is 4 daily - except on sabbath -) where again MAD is very well located and has a massive advantage (e.g. not many potential combinations TLV - EZE other than MAD).

DUS started in June https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... june-2018/. So let's see how it ends in a couple of years from now.

So you have been cherry picking for those examples.

SCQ83 wrote:

They are unable to develop any European market further than a couple of daily flights for "connections". The only exceptions are ORY and AMS because of AFKL and Skyteam.

OPO and LIS are one hour from Madrid, and MAD has a massive comparative advantage to any other European hub for flights to the Americas (with Portugal-Americas itself being a major market) and they can fly any Embraer there.

Tel Aviv - Americas is also a very large market (btw, Air Europa is one daily and Iberia/El Al - codeshare - is 4 daily - except on sabbath -) where again MAD is very well located and has a massive advantage (e.g. not many potential combinations TLV - EZE other than MAD).

DUS started in June https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... june-2018/. So let's see how it ends in a couple of years from now.

So you have been cherry picking for those examples.

I don't particularly care how often they fly or not to one destination. I was just saying that your conclusion "whenever they (Air Europa) try to enter mature markets, they always fail" (you said that, not me) is not true. Furthermore, you are the one cherry picking: BOS and GVA are routes that were recently launched but "failed" - you did not point out other routes launched that are still running.

They have launched a bunch of routes in the last years that haven't failed. I can't be bothered to search for them, but other routes include Venice, Quito, some in central America, Brazil,...

Anyway, I'm not discussing whether I like or not Air Europa's strategy. Neither how strong markets are. The topic raised is "How is Air Europa doing?" I commented and suggested why, but I also challenged your conclusion because I think it's very weak. Anyway, Air Europa's strategy somehow works.

BTW, Iberia/Tel-Aviv frequency is now 3 daily flights, since IB reduced to 1 daily flight (from previous 2) + 2 flights by ELAL (except on sabbath, only 1 flight).

konrad wrote:

Is Spain the only country in Europe which is able to support two full-sized airlines? The LH-AB duopoly failed in Germany, yet IB-UX seems to function somehow, despite the competition from Ryanair and Easyjet also present at Madrid and Barcelona.

Mind you, until 2012 there was a third (however small). Indeed, Spain was the only country in the world (besides the United States) to have three airlines in three alliances. Unfortunately, just a month after that special Christmas flight when Spanair delighted a great many children, it keeled over.

You seem to be forgetting the two Big British Airlines (U2 and BA) and the Not-so-big British Airline (VS) and also the Big Irish Airline (FR) and the Little Irish Airline (EI). While VS and EI are smaller than their countries' compatriots, they are full-sized enough to count.

tobsw wrote:

I don't particularly care how often they fly or not to one destination. I was just saying that your conclusion "whenever they (Air Europa) try to enter mature markets, they always fail" (you said that, not me) is not true. Furthermore, you are the one cherry picking: BOS and GVA are routes that were recently launched but "failed" - you did not point out other routes launched that are still running.

IMO this is important because Air Europa doesn't touch the passenger flying MAD-FRA for a same-day return purchased by 500 EUR by their company. Those PAX will fly either Iberia or Lufthansa. And what is better? Selling a FRA-MAD-FRA for 500 EUR or a FRA-MAD-BOG-MAD-FRA for 750 EUR?

You can pretty much apply this to every other destination where UX competes with Iberia and the local legacy (Brussels, Swiss, TAP, British Airways, etc)

Air Europa expects to achieve in 2018 the "best profits in its history," per Juan Jose Hidalgo, president, Globalia group.

http://aerolatinnews.com/destacado/air- ... n-hidalgo/

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO this is important because Air Europa doesn't touch the passenger flying MAD-FRA for a same-day return purchased by 500 EUR by their company. Those PAX will fly either Iberia or Lufthansa. And what is better? Selling a FRA-MAD-FRA for 500 EUR or a FRA-MAD-BOG-MAD-FRA for 750 EUR?

You can pretty much apply this to every other destination where UX competes with Iberia and the local legacy (Brussels, Swiss, TAP, British Airways, etc)

Thanks for giving us an armchair CEO lecture. I don´t particularly care who has a larger profit margin - we can create another topic to discuss who is more profitable, in which sense they are similar/different...

Perhaps Air Europa has come to the conclusion they don´t want to focus/compete in tha business segment, and mainly try to get that connecting leisure passenger. If that strategy works for them? What´s wrong with that?

Frequency might be important for the business passenger. But, if you focus on leisure, frequency is not that relevant. There´s nothing wrong with the latter.

Essentially, the OP opened with "How is Air Euopa doing?". Not bad, whether you like it or not. They overlap quite a lot with Iberia, but they also have destinations where they have a monopoly Having said that, on smaller markets, such as Puerto Rico and Montevideo (the first ones that have come to my mind), Iberia has slowly grown (increased frequency) while Air Europa had to reduce,... So it´s a mixed bag. On other markets, there´s a healthy competition.

Air Europa found a their niche and expanded and turned it into gold . i dont think they are going away any time soon . yes they don't have lots of frequencies to european destinations but they do serve them their gold mine is long haul and secondary markets IB wouldn't touch . But still they managed to serve destinations where IB is present and make it work . I.E BOG EZE GRU etc

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO this is important because Air Europa doesn't touch the passenger flying MAD-FRA for a same-day return purchased by 500 EUR by their company. Those PAX will fly either Iberia or Lufthansa. And what is better? Selling a FRA-MAD-FRA for 500 EUR or a FRA-MAD-BOG-MAD-FRA for 750 EUR?

Well, I could fly Air Europa MAD-FRA-MAD same day. The schedule allows it

7:05 MAD 9:50 FRA 2h 45m
15:00 MAD 17:45 FRA 2h 45m

10:50 FRA 13:40 MAD 2h 50m
19:10 FRA 22:00 MAD 2h 50m

While not being the most flexible schedule, it offers an early morning departure and late night return for MAD-based travellers.

Not so nice for FRA-based journeys. But not having an aircraft (and crew) overnighting at FRA also reduces costs, so the need for high revenues is somwhat reduced.

Also the arrival times at MAD are perfect for both UX longhaul banks at MAD. One at early afternoon and the other one around mignight. Not evey airline needs to force itself to cater for erery single type of passenger. They just throw the best posible product out to the market and see what you get in return.

konrad wrote:

Is Spain the only country in Europe which is able to support two full-sized airlines? The LH-AB duopoly failed in Germany, yet IB-UX seems to function somehow, despite the competition from Ryanair and Easyjet also present at Madrid and Barcelona.

There are plenty of examples but Ireland and the UK are obvious ones.

In the UK you have British Airways and EasyJet, both are undeniably "full-sized" airlines. The other UK based carriers like Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic could be included as well but with VS you'll find the brand is bigger than the airline, many are often surprised that as an airline it only carries 5.3m passengers a year.

In Ireland there's Aer Lingus and Ryanair, and while Ryanair dwarfs its Irish rival on a pan European scale, Aer Lingus is by no means tiny when looked at independently or even when compared to Ryanair's Irish operation. As of 2017 Aer Lingus (incl. Regional) carried around 12 million passengers, making it larger than Air Europa itself.

Aisak wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO this is important because Air Europa doesn't touch the passenger flying MAD-FRA for a same-day return purchased by 500 EUR by their company. Those PAX will fly either Iberia or Lufthansa. And what is better? Selling a FRA-MAD-FRA for 500 EUR or a FRA-MAD-BOG-MAD-FRA for 750 EUR?

Well, I could fly Air Europa MAD-FRA-MAD same day. The schedule allows it.

I think checking prices shows it nicely. For instance for this coming Thursday for a day trip from MAD

UX MAD-FRA-MAD 83 EUR (!)
IB MAD-FRA-MAD 137 EUR
LH MAD-FRA-MAD 390 EUR

UX MAD-LIS-MAD 253 EUR
TP MAD-LIS-MAD 310 EUR
IB MAD-LIS-MAD 501 EUR

UX MAD-AMS-MAD 193 EUR
IB MAD-AMS-MAD 555 EUR
KL MAD-AMS-MAD 971 EUR

In general UX comes usually as the cheapest option.

lhrsfosyd wrote:

BA/VS are pretty big out of UK so no Spain isn't the only country with two large full service carriers.

VS is acutally quiet a small airline, UX being more than double its size.

SCQ83 wrote:

Aisak wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

IMO this is important because Air Europa doesn't touch the passenger flying MAD-FRA for a same-day return purchased by 500 EUR by their company. Those PAX will fly either Iberia or Lufthansa. And what is better? Selling a FRA-MAD-FRA for 500 EUR or a FRA-MAD-BOG-MAD-FRA for 750 EUR?

Well, I could fly Air Europa MAD-FRA-MAD same day. The schedule allows it.

I think checking prices shows it nicely. For instance for this coming Thursday for a day trip from MAD

UX MAD-FRA-MAD 83 EUR (!)
IB MAD-FRA-MAD 137 EUR
LH MAD-FRA-MAD 390 EUR

UX MAD-LIS-MAD 253 EUR
TP MAD-LIS-MAD 310 EUR
IB MAD-LIS-MAD 501 EUR

UX MAD-AMS-MAD 193 EUR
IB MAD-AMS-MAD 555 EUR
KL MAD-AMS-MAD 971 EUR

In general UX comes usually as the cheapest option.

That´s good news for the consumer! Nothing wrong with that! You can choose who you fly with! If you rather spend 971 EUR and fly with KLM than 193 EUR with Air Europa, good for you.

I really don´t get (or understand) what you are trying to say. Are you angry that UX offers cheap flights? Doesn´t catter the business market?

You do realise that SCQ83 is absolutely correct in his comments it's you SIR who is trying to denounce them as being totally irrelevant and your making every effort in trying to look at it in a different manner!

UX has found a niche by serving secondary markets in LATAM where competition is limited and 787 capacity fits pretty well for these long/thin routes.

They are also able to compete in the big markets such as EZE and BOG. Also run feeder flights to CDG from spanish cities outside of MAD (VLC/AGP/BIO).

And last but not least, their hard and soft product is better than IB's IMO and their fleet is younger.

Cunard wrote:

You do realise that SCQ83 is absolutely correct in his comments it's you SIR who is trying to denounce them as being totally irrelevant and your making every effort in trying to look at it in a different manner!

The guy must work for UX. In any case I don't have anything against Air Europa. It is definitely good for the customer.

But IMO they are not a serious company. Just take a look at the agreement with the government of Venezuela. viewtopic.php?t=1408529

I mean WTF. Does anyone imagine IAG, Lufthansa or AFKL doing something similar? Eh no.

upperdeckfan wrote:

UX has found a niche by serving secondary markets in LATAM where competition is limited and 787 capacity fits pretty well for these long/thin routes. They are also able to compete in the big markets such as EZE and BOG.

This is a bit of a cliché. The only destinations served by UX and not served by IB are low-yield holiday markets (Cancún, Punta Cana, some Brazilian airports in the North). The only "thin" routes are Asunción and Córdoba (LATAM flies to Guayaquil and Boliviana codeshares with IB to VVI).

On the other hand, UX does not serve Rio or large business markets like MEX or SCL (!; btw UX served briefly MAD-SCL a few years ago).

upperdeckfan wrote:

Also run feeder flights to CDG from spanish cities outside of MAD (VLC/AGP/BIO)

BIO-CDG is served has been served by Air France or HOP!, not by UX.

Just to be clear. I do not work for UX or any other airline. I just have a passion for commercial aviation. That's why I am here.

The good thing of an open forum is that we all can discuss, share our ideas, conclusions, hypothesis, opinions, etc... but since it is open, we have to accept that other user may challenge your ideas, conclusions, hypothesis.

That's exactly whay I did. I did challenge SCQ83's conclusion "whenever they (Air Europa) try to enter mature markets, they always fail." giving examples of destinations launched by Air Europa that are still in operation. I think this is accepatable.

Then he/she replied accusing me of cherry picking, and sharing his/her opinion why those markets work for Air Europa (which I don't disagree with). And he/she also ranted that they only fly once or twice to some european destinations, to cater connecting pax, when Iberia or other legacy competitor fly with multiple daily frequencies, valued more by business passengers. There's nothing wrong with that strategy, if it work for Air Europa, good for them. And if they can provide cheap fares, ¡good for us!

IMO Air Europa is a serious company, but not the guys in charge. Their staff are as professional as any other legacy airline staff. For the guys in charge, I will save my judgement

However I must agree that the deal with the Venezuelan governement is pathetic, ridiculous. I wonder how the US will respond - but then, UXs fleet is almost Boeing only... Interesting.

Well, they fly to good a bunch of Latam destination where IB does not fly to. I've compiled a list with routes served by IB and UX.

-Guayaquil: Air Europa
-Córdoba: Air Europa
-Asunción: Air Europa
-Recife: Air Europa
-Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Air Europa
-Salvador (Brasil): Air Europa
-San Pedro Sula: Air Europa
-Cancún: Air Europa
-Punta Cana: Air Europa

-Bogota: Air Europa, Iberia
-Lima: Iberia, Air Europa
-Quito: Iberia, Air Europa
-Caracas: Iberia, Air Europa
-Sao Paulo: Iberia, Air Europa
-Buenos Aires: Iberia, Air Europa
-Montevideo: Iberia, Air Europa
-La Habana: Iberia, Air Europa
-Santo Domingo: Air Europa, Iberia

-Santiago de Chile: Iberia
-Medellín: Iberia
-Guatemala: Iberia
-El Salvador: Iberia
-San Juan Puerto Rico: Iberia
-Mexico City: Iberia
-Rio de Janeiro: Iberia

-Panama City: Iberia, Air Europa (from February 2019)
-Iguazu Falls: Air Europa (from June 2019)

It is true that UX served briefly SCL: but it was not competitive, it was a Madrid - Salvador de Bahía - Santiago de Chile flight, difficult to compete when there are up to 3 daily non-stop flights.

This pretty much summarised what I said in my previous post:

-Guayaquil: Air Europa - LATAM serves GYE-MAD (JV)
-Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Air Europa - Boliviana codeshares with Iberia in the route (probably very low-yielding; Bolivia is the poorest country in LatAm; mostly VFR)

-Recife: Air Europa - Holiday market / low-yielding
-Salvador (Brasil): Air Europa - Holiday market / low-yielding
-Cancún: Air Europa - Holiday / charter market / low-yielding
-Punta Cana: Air Europa - Holiday / charter market / low-yielding
-Iguazu Falls: Air Europa = Holiday market - 1 weekly subsidised by local authorities

-San Pedro Sula: Air Europa - 1 weekly subsidised by local authorities

-Córdoba: Air Europa - OK, thin route
-Asunción: Air Europa - OK, thin route

So really UX does not offer anything particularly worth flying to. If Iberia doesn't fly to CUN or PUJ is not because a 787 is better suited (those are flown regularly by 747s with Wamos) but because the yields are not there and IB has better markets to send their planes like MEX or SCL.

Let's not mention for instance San Juan de Puerto Rico. UX started the route when Iberia was in bad shape. Iberia restarted the route and now UX left. Or MVD. UX started the route a few years ago. Iberia restarted MAD-MVD later and now it is 1 daily with Iberia (non-stop) and UX is going to mix Puerto Iguazú with MVD (!).

tobsw wrote:

Well, they fly to good a bunch of Latam destination where IB does not fly to. I've compiled a list with routes served by IB and UX.

-Guayaquil: Air Europa
-Córdoba: Air Europa
-Asunción: Air Europa
-Recife: Air Europa
-Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Air Europa
-Salvador (Brasil): Air Europa
-San Pedro Sula: Air Europa
-Cancún: Air Europa
-Punta Cana: Air Europa

-Bogota: Air Europa, Iberia
-Lima: Iberia, Air Europa
-Quito: Iberia, Air Europa
-Caracas: Iberia, Air Europa
-Sao Paulo: Iberia, Air Europa
-Buenos Aires: Iberia, Air Europa
-Montevideo: Iberia, Air Europa
-La Habana: Iberia, Air Europa
-Santo Domingo: Air Europa, Iberia

-Santiago de Chile: Iberia
-Medellín: Iberia
-Guatemala: Iberia
-El Salvador: Iberia
-San Juan Puerto Rico: Iberia
-Mexico City: Iberia
-Rio de Janeiro: Iberia

-Panama City: Iberia, Air Europa (from February 2019)
-Iguazu Falls: Air Europa (from June 2019)

They are also starting Fortaleza (Brazil) in 2019.

So, should we change title from "How is Air Europa doing?" to "What do you think about Air Europa"?

Is there any fact about its financial performance anyone can share (thanks mercure1) other than personal tastes and experiences?

winGl3t wrote:

So, should we change title from "How is Air Europa doing?" to "What do you think about Air Europa"?

Is there any fact about its financial performance anyone can share (thanks mercure1) other than personal tastes and experiences?

Nope, Air Europa is a company fully owned by a family; no financial information is published.

Somehow, they have focused on a niche, VFR, long haul, thin, leisure focused operation, except on a few bigger markets (NYC, MIA, BOG, GRU). And it works for them.

winGl3t wrote:

So, should we change title from "How is Air Europa doing?" to "What do you think about Air Europa"?

Is there any fact about its financial performance anyone can share (thanks mercure1) other than personal tastes and experiences?

Air Europa is not a publicly traded company. In addition they are part of Globalia.

We only know that from time to time, Mr. Hidalgo (its CEO) will publicly declare that UX is going to have a strategic partnership or it will be partially sold to a major corporation. Etihad (back in the day when they used to buy any carrier out there) was mentioned a few times; I remember they even announced imminent flights to Abu Dhabi from Madrid. Then it went with Hainan - HNA. And nothing happened again. So they end up with an strategic partnership with the Venezuelan government.

Also let's not forget that a few years ago when Iberia chopped a few routes (including major routes like HAV), Mr. Hidalgo said that Iberia's bankruptcy was imminent.

So we can only speculate and analyse their routes. It seems that UX got their cheerleaders here anyway.

Air Europa is the airline of a holidaying group Globalia which owns hotels and resorts in several places.

Looking at UX catalogue of destinations, you can't analyze them taking into account what matters for a network carrier, namely Iberia. They don't fly to the typical business places, at least, not as a purely network legacy carrier does because they need to feed their main focus holiday-markets in places like Cancun, Brazil, Cuba, or Dominican Republic. In other words, you can't compare destination lists of an airline like BA to the ones from an airline like Thomson Fly or TUI. Said that, I understand UX has a very odd mix, which is fairly ilogical for some people. I'd always consider them a holidaying feeder airline despite taking pieces of business markets.

To be honest, Iberia must be very aware UX has stepped a lot forward when it comes to compare fleets. The 787, despite the RR problems which have also suffered UX, offers a quite unique a desirable customer experience. Iberia is adding now the A350s and the A330s are very okey. UX's product is more than good on the 787, and that must be admitted.

winGl3t wrote:

So, should we change title from "How is Air Europa doing?" to "What do you think about Air Europa"?

Is there any fact about its financial performance anyone can share (thanks mercure1) other than personal tastes and experiences?

I'd say change it to "UX vs IB - which one do you like more?"

UX and IB are different business model. As said before, UX is private-owned while IB is part of publicly trade IAG. Then, IB performance is measured by the shareholders in terms of share price while UX performance is measured by the net profit they owners get. IB have a much larger fleet and therefore offer much more seats/day than UX so although both can be called "full size - full service" carriers I don't think UX looks to directly compete with IB beyond a few big markets such as EZE, BOG, SDQ. These markets have proven they can sustain multiple daily flights to/from MAD.

a350lover wrote:

Air Europa is the airline of a holidaying group Globalia which owns hotels and resorts in several places.

Looking at UX catalogue of destinations, you can't analyze them taking into account what matters for a network carrier, namely Iberia. They don't fly to the typical business places, at least, not as a purely network legacy carrier does because they need to feed their main focus holiday-markets in places like Cancun, Brazil, Cuba, or Dominican Republic. In other words, you can't compare destination lists of an airline like BA to the ones from an airline like Thomson Fly or TUI. Said that, I understand UX has a very odd mix, which is fairly ilogical for some people. I'd always consider them a holidaying feeder airline despite taking pieces of business markets.

I don't think UX can be called a "holiday feeder airline" a la Thomson or TUI since they offer "full service" as any european legacy does. Soft and hard product on UX have very little to do with a holiday feeder airline, specially in business class.