There is a fierce debate going on at airliners.net if this is really the case as the early 330s couldn't operated effeciently out of MAD. The new generation could, but I recall that they always postponed any decision due to the fact that the 340s were making a lot of money (untill 4 years ago IB was printing money on their Latin American network). Only after the emergence of Air Madrid they started to loose ground (Air Madrid was dumping capacity on the most important routes ex MAD which IB matched with unbelievable low fares). The role of Air Madrid has been taken over by UX, which seem to do a better job than Air Madrid.MR_Boeing wrote:On the long haul network they made (in my opinion) the crucial mistake not to go with a more efficient aircraft like the A330 already years ago. Now they have the A333 on order, but it's comming too late. Now they have about the least efficient long haul aircraft (and in some cases too big for them) and their cabin is outdated (something you don't want with the increasing capacity on the Europe- Latin American market).
MR_Boeing wrote:Agreed, though things aren't made easy for them. AMS, ARN and TXL are heavily loss making routes and their contribution to the long haul network is not enough to justify the operation of these routes
If you can't make AMS work than you're doing something wrong. Though traffic is down considerably on the route due to the crisis in Spain, it's strange that UX is able to get into this market and oust IB out of AMS-MAD. Moreover, not long ago IB dominated AMS-MAD. Will be intersting what will happen on BRU-MAD when UX starts this route (isn't the first flight in one week?). If UX also succeeds at BRU, I fear that UX will do even more to make life for IB difficult in Europe and Latin America.
