Originally Posted by
spin88
I might further add, that the US3 are at a real disadvantage in most asia markets as the US airports are not really set up for transit. For example, there is a lot of Asia to SA traffic, and visa versa, but a lot of it goes via Europe/ME and some via Australia and NZ. For those with a US visa, its not an issue, but you can't simply transit the US airports in the same way you can most overseas. I would think that UA would be interested in something like SFO-GRU (6472 miles) or SFO-SCL (5918 miles) over these ULR flights to Asia.
I agree that the US3 are at a real disadvantage with transit traffic. However, I don't think SFO-GRU/SCL would operate even without any visa issues because the routes just have such low demand (especially SCL). There need to be some O&D passengers.
Originally Posted by
spin88
Re IAD unlike SFO/LAX/SEA - all of which get substantal traffic to both Asia and Europe and also to TLV, IAD has few flights to Asia. The US flag carriers certainly don't fly those routes. Same with MIA. Its a huge base for AA, but only for SA. MCO is just a tourist spot,and it does not support even a flight to NRT.
I agree with your points regarding SFO/LAX, but I do think IAD is ahead of SEA. Outside of Europe (IAD's largest intercontinental market) and ME3, IAD has PEK, NRT, ICN, HKG, JED, RUH, and DEL in Asia, ADD, CMN, JNB, DSS, and ACC in Africa, GRU, LBP, and BOG in South America. Plus, UA only has a monopoly on GRU and either doesn't serve or fights for passengers on every other route. Outside of Asia (SEA's largest intercontinental market) and ME3, SEA has DUB, CDG, LHR, LGW, AMS, FRA, KEF, and MAN in Europe and that's it. MIA/MCO lack flights to Asia due in large part to their geography, but the demand is there. BR, JL, and NH have all been in discussions with MIA for a nonstop flight in a few years. MCO probably won't get one in the near future because it doesn't have enough premium passengers even though it could fill an all Y aircraft.