rafi2k6

Why do you say that? LY used to do pretty well on their flights to Miami if I recall.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that about the UA 777's. good to know.
And regarding the MIA route, I think either AA or LY copuld make it work pretty well. I'm sure AA isn't to eager to get back to TLV ($$$) but they do have a code share and interline agreement with LY right?
I don't see why LY doesnt refurbish it's cabins and give a go at MIA, YUL and ORD again. or at least ORD and MIA (AA support)

Yes,there was a document released by ADMTL about their future expansion plans, mostly just about how they're adding more gates, etc..
but there was a table with sections reading 2-4 years, 4-6 years, 6-8 years and 8-10 years. under each section it listed new destinations the airport would like to attract airlines to serve, as well as destinations already served that they'd like more frequency to.

I searched around for it but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

joshwex90

LY may do well, but any expansion of 767 service is bad!

That would be a good route for AA to do, but I just don't see them starting service to Israel. Don't they owe lots of money?
It could be a decent LY flight with an AA flight number, but judging from the numbers they had last time, more like a 777 or 747 than 767 flight

rafi2k6

Oh forsure, either LY or AA could do great on the route with a 777.
Maybe even a 77W once AA has enough.
*bubble burst* that would require AA to pay the TWA employees their pay an interest which they owe from the 90's

TWA884

El Al cannot establish new routes to the United States, or restart old ones, so long as Israeli civil aviation is rated in Category 2 by the FAA.

AAerSTL

Honestly, at this point the question should be **when** AA and US merge what will happen to the TLV route. Not sure about the legalities but I doubt the combined carrier/entity would throw in the towel altogether aparently its a big money maker for US. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for AA to add MIA if they would anyway have a station at TLV. Another thing that may bode well for TLV service on AA in the future is they are reconfiguring the 772s to J/Y (with Main Cabin Extra) perhaps a more appropriate seating configuration for TLV.

rafi2k6

I think a small F cabin from MIA would be profitable, say 6-9 seats. There's deffinatly a market for it from MIA. Something like 9F 24J 228Y on a 772 from MIA would do great!
If US takes over AA they'll be obligated to pay the former TWA employees any outstanding wages. However, bearing in mind that PHL-TLV is one of the top 5 money making routes for US I'm certain that they'd want to keep it. A few million $$ in extra operating costs on a route that makes them as much profit as it does is acceptable IMHO.

Anyways, once they pay off the ex TWA employees I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about AA/US expansion in TLV á la ORD and/or MIA.


And what's this nonsense about Israel only being CAT-II? Have they still not gotten recertified for CAT-I!?
Ridiculous!

AAerSTL

You're probably right there is some demand for F but is it enough to sustain the cabin and the route? Sure there is great premium demand to TLV hence why BA, LH, LX, and others send their long haul widebody aircraft for a 4-6 hour hop that could be handled with narrowbodies. Its interesting you say that, many here (including myself) believed UA would replace at least one EWR-TLV with a three cabin PM-UA aircraft to provide F service. Not sure if its due to operational considerations or if UA has done their homework and determined US-TLV doesn't have significant F travel.


Yes but the could have been said about TW in 2001. TW filed bankruptcy before the asset purchase to AMR and clearly the Israeli courts still hold AMR accountable for the severance pay. Should be interesting to see, hopefully they can reach a consensual agreement. It's unfortunate AA flies to nearly 60 countries and provides workers all protections they are afforded by the law and in many cases protection far above and beyond the law through collective bargaining agreements, yet has decided not to do so in Israel. Not saying I agree with the law but its unfortunate nonetheless.


Yep this is the same designation given to airports in places like Curacao, The Philippines, and Saint Maarten. Yet Mexico was increased from category 2 back to category 1 in December 2010.

joshwex90

Can someone explain me to the whole issue with AA and the TWA wages?

Also, I too expected UA to switch to a 3-cabin on the EWR-TLV route, or possibly even a 747. However, part of it may have less to do with the F cabin and more to do with the C cabin. A lot of the TLV-EWR pax are connecting, so they could easily lose business to US (PHL) and DL (JFK). US has, by far, the best C cabin on the TLV route. But with DL slowly swapping in their new BE, and upgrading all planes to it, I think UA is wary about downgrading the C cabin. They got a lot of compliments when they put the new seats on the new route, but sCO 772s are 2-2-2 in C, unlike sUA which are 2-4-2. (I personally have done it, and there are some benefits to sUA.) But overall, they may be wary of that and the potential to lose pax.

AAerSTL

Basically, TWA flew to Israel since the Mandate days and had a large, very senior workforce to handle a single 767-300 to JFK. When AMR acquired TWA out of bankruptcy (structured as an asset purchase) they promptly ceased flying and provided no notice to the passengers affected, many arrived at TLV to find an empty ticket counter, workers didn't find out any sooner. When AMR purchased TWA's assets they were truly on the brink of liquidation in January 2001. I was in St. Louis at the time, my Dad was flying TWA weekly for work and he too became very concerned about his flights AMR feared if the market conditions required them to cancel or suspend the service they'd be on the hook for the severance benefits. The flights ended promptly to prevent seizure of the aircraft. There has been speculation of the amounts outstanding, possible TLV service on AA, etc. Without the US merger I wouldn't count on it but I think they're missing a huge opportunity from Miami.


http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/tra...n_airlines.htm

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13513...ict-court.html


I think you are right UA probably figures what they are doing is working so no need to change equipment, add additional frequencies or a flight from another hub despite however nice it maybe for us. That's surprising you think US is the best, granted I haven't flown them long haul (that will probably be changing soon ) but it looks like they have stepped up the game slightly. They do have a much smaller cabin than CO, and even much smaller than other A333/332 operators. Need to try the Cirrus seat but hopefully not on US. Been contemplating changing one direction of my CX F to try the new J but I just can't do it to myself.

Nexus 617

Responses to some posts from the last 2-3 weeks:

> How does that work exactly? Govt. has to approve every route? Is there
> no open skies treaty with the US like the one rumored with Europe?

>Correct, no Open Skies treaty with the US. One in the works with the EU
> (I believe it's been approved, but hasn't yet been implemented).

Yes, Israel has had a (limited) open skies treaty with the US since the 1990s. United is free to operate pretty much any route they wish between the US and Israel (SFO-VDA, anyone?). However, just because they are *allowed* to operate a route doesn't mean they *can.* United still has to request and pay for an operating slot for an arrival and a departure at the times they wish at Ben Gurion. If there is no room, then no slot and no flight. This is exactly the same for UA flying to LHR, JFK, or any other slot-restricted airport. For reference, outside the U.S., almost all airports are slot restricted (although usually not slot constrained). See AA's recent problems obtaining slots at PEK for a similar issue.

Now, we can all speculate as to the reason the slot application was "rejected," and whether there was any political pressure from LY, but I just wanted to clarify that slot applications have virtually nothing to do with open skies treaties.


>And what about MIA? MIA could easily support at least a daily B772 during
> peak months and 5x p/week B763 on off peak.

The 763 cannot make it westbound TLV-MIA. TLV-YYZ is pretty much the limit. LY's 2 newest 762s can (E and F), along with the 772s and I believe the 744s. In the AA fleet, I think that only the 772s (and of course future 77Ws) can make it.

joshwex90

So they basically owe the money that TWA owed to former TWA employees? And if they fly to Israel, one of their planes may be seized? I just don't get why the Israeli government is taking care of this. Shouldn't that be a problem then for every country TWA used to serve?

In terms of hard product, US definitely has the best. Talking strictly hard product, of the carriers that do North America - TLV, I would rate them the following:
US>new DL>AC (barely better than CO though)>PMCO>LY>old DL

Envoy is a fantastic product. And the soft product has improved as well, though soft product, UA blows them out of the water. I hope that doesn't decline

rafi2k6

Interesting thoughts here.

regarding the thought that UA might(have) added a 3 class a/c from EWR:


The thought never crossed my mind for a few reasons:
- The NYC-TLV market is massivly O&D with some connecting PAX. The majority of people who fly from NY to Israel with fly in Y, while the "Besserah Mentschen" will fly in Business class, (paid)First class is really meant for people who are so pampered and "fragile" that they must fly in the absoloute highest level of service.
-I think in most cases Business class is as good or just a tad less decadent than F these days.
-F is also really only used by the extravigantly rich or VIP's in my experiance. Though, I have been upgraded on several occasions my self.

Regarding the ORD slot denial:
- It could have been for a multitude of reasons, either political, operational or other.
- I think UA asked for a mid-day arrival slot, which makes sense because from EWR UA084 and UA090 arrive at 0920 and either 1400 or 1640.
So to complement that an arrival of UAxxx ORD-TLV at say 1200 or so would be good. SO either the airport can't handle a 777 at that time due to other planes arriving or LY really wants to re-instate ORD once CAT-I is regained and pressured the authorities that be to deny UA and extra slot.

Regarding possible expansion from Canada to Israel:
-I forgot to mention that the Canada-Israel corridor is capacity restricted, so only X number of seats p/week are allowed.
-Until this is lifted and an open skies agreement or at least increase in capacity is allowed don't expect AC to upgrade the route to a 777 or launch YUL-TLV.

Regarding CAT-II:
-I wonder how this will effect Arkia, I seem to recall that they have a few 787's on order and were planning to use them to operate flights to North America. I'm not sure what cities, presumably NYC, MIA or even MCO seeing as NY and Florida seem to be pretty popular with Israelis.

We shall see chevrah.

NYTA

If UA was smart, they'd put on another flight from TLV-JFK. There still seems to be room for more seats on that route given how high the fares are these days and it would allow better connections to/from the west coast in the "P.S." service, which is one of the few ways to get business travelers to connect through the US - otherwise if you want comfy business seats the whole way to SFO or LAX then you have to fly LH, BA, or LX.

rafi2k6

Well to be perfectly honest, I'd rather connect in europe wether it be with BA, LH, or LX and arrive in LA or SFO with europe.
That way I get the international business class flat bed and standards the whole way.
Just a thought.

joshwex90

I highly doubt they would put a TLV-JFK flight. They have no service there except p.s. to LAX and SFO, and they have UAX to IAD. JFK is as outstation as you can get. No way do they introduce international service. Where would the crew and plane come from?
I sooner see them introducing SFO-TLV. They've already discussed the possibility of IAH-TLV.