Right.

To my mind, that would imply more demand, both for passenger traffic and cargo out of both BCN and HAM, but, for some reason, those flights are not diverted nearly to the same degree.

Yes, I understand they are the only game in town, but, at the end of the day, if the demand is there from BCN and HAM, I would have to assume that UaCo would not turn the business away.

Secondly, there are other options from both AMS and CDG, namely EWR and IAH, so presumably UaCo would have an easier time accommodating the "overweight" capacity in both AMS and EWR than in HAM or BCN...

You obviously have no interest whatsoever in the actual point...

It reminds me of debating a ten-year-old, entertaining but silly.

Leave the personal attacks out of it. I've made my point, and you agreed - it's all speculation. I have a keen interest in the actual point, as well as keeping the hyperbole to a minimum.

You are the one asking me to leave the personal attacks and hyperbole out?

That takes a lot of gall.

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the second. First, nobody forgot your undeniable and massive defense of these routes back when they were announced. Now that most of the "speculation" you railed against has come to fruition, instead of realizing you were wrong and perhaps gracefully stepping back, it seems you have decided to simply throw the kitchen sink at the situation under the guise of anything "being a possiblity". Well actually some speculation has far more chance of being true than others.

The fact is the 3 class 777 previously on this route wasnt't making stops in Goose Bay. Starting pissing matches over the appropriate name for these stops is irrelevant.

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the second. First, nobody forgot your undeniable and massive defense of these routes back when they were announced, using the very same posting styles you continuously disavow. Now that most of the "speculation" you railed against has come to fruition, instead of realizing you were wrong and perhaps gracefully stepping back, it seems you have decided to simply throw the kitchen sink at the situation under the guise of anything "being a possiblity". Well actually some speculation has far more chance of being true than others.

The fact is the 3 class 777 previously on this route wasnt't making stops in Goose Bay. Starting pissing matches over the appropriate name for these stops is irrelevant.

Almost as entertaining as WWE wrestling!

This post contributes zero to the discussion. If you took the time to actually read my previous posts on the subject you would find a rather balanced view of the situation (more than can be said of some of the myopic posters here) and an attempt at an analysis of why the stops occur. I missed your contribution.

What diversion rate has to occur before you'll come to the conclusion that these a/c should not be on this route? 25%? 50%? I'm honestly curious.

Hey you had me when you produced numbers.

Flightaware is a wonderful thing :D

See I am not a raving CO cool-aid drinker. Right now MTD is 75% divert rate.

Not sure what route you're referring to (and the a/c), but a 75% diversion rate is beyond FUBAR.

Of course it is. I'm still looking for the post where I said it was acceptable, or even close.

It's a short term issue though - in a few months the jetstream pattern will have changed again, and by next winter there will be significantly more flexibility to cross-fleet and use a 767 or some other suitable aircraft for the months where headwinds are an issue. You are really upset about this ;)