ARAJET

MiamiDRGuy

Bronze
May 19, 2013
1,415
471
83
Arajet announces now first time ever flights to San Pablo. This will get interesting. One way $166USD, that is WAY cheaper than MIA-GRU $700USD average. Maybe one day I can do MIA-SDQ then GRU via Arajet. Save me money!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlaPlaya

MariaRubia

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2019
2,348
3,139
113
That's a long old flight at 7 hours 15. Not sure how comfortable Arajet planes are to cope with that length of flight and I am not sure its a great idea. I can't think of any company that has successfully managed a low cost long haul service. GOL used to fly that route but now they fly to Punta Cana instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aarhus

MiamiDRGuy

Bronze
May 19, 2013
1,415
471
83
That's a long old flight at 7 hours 15. Not sure how comfortable Arajet planes are to cope with that length of flight and I am not sure its a great idea. I can't think of any company that has successfully managed a low cost long haul service. GOL used to fly that route but now they fly to Punta Cana instead.
Miami to San Paulo is 8 hours 39 minutes, still long flight.
 

MariaRubia

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2019
2,348
3,139
113
Their fleet are all 737-8 Max.


The article hinted that that plane wasn't really a good option for a long route. I think most people don't mind being hemmed in to a tight seat pitch with hardly any restrooms and zero service for an hour or two. But when you get to six, seven, eight hours then you need a bit more space and more service. Meals? Water? Not sure whether the standard Arajet product incorporates these.

Having said this, it's interesting to see that the majority of their routes are mid-haul, Quito and even Mexico City are not short hops. So maybe that's the plan, they are aiming to do something other than the short hops to Miami. Maybe they will do an LAX or SFO those would be very interesting routes.
 

carlos

Super Moderator
Staff member
May 29, 2002
3,785
764
113
The article hinted that that plane wasn't really a good option for a long route. I think most people don't mind being hemmed in to a tight seat pitch with hardly any restrooms and zero service for an hour or two. But when you get to six, seven, eight hours then you need a bit more space and more service. Meals? Water? Not sure whether the standard Arajet product incorporates these.

Having said this, it's interesting to see that the majority of their routes are mid-haul, Quito and even Mexico City are not short hops. So maybe that's the plan, they are aiming to do something other than the short hops to Miami. Maybe they will do an LAX or SFO those would be very interesting routes.

Seems to be a matter of cost saving while also offering a cheaper option for passengers.

Below is another article that discusses the narrow body type airplanes like the 737-Max and how they are being used on long haul flights.

Keep in mind that being in a bigger/wider plane does not guarantee more room in your seat. You can be just as cramped although I do get you may not feel as boxed in when comparing to being in a narrower plane.

 
  • Like
Reactions: aarhus and JD Jones

aarhus

www.johnboyter.com
Jun 10, 2008
4,472
2,016
113
That's a long old flight at 7 hours 15. Not sure how comfortable Arajet planes are to cope with that length of flight and I am not sure its a great idea. I can't think of any company that has successfully managed a low cost long haul service. GOL used to fly that route but now they fly to Punta Cana instead.
I did the Gol SD to Sao P fligth. Will be interesting to see how it works out for Arajet.
 

El Hijo de Manolo

It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous!
Dec 10, 2021
4,057
2,663
113
Dominican Republic
Their fleet are all 737-8 Max.

I would never fly the defective 737 max. It was modified, not rehauled. It is a faulty design. Folks are playing Russian roulette here
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NanSanPedro

MariaRubia

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2019
2,348
3,139
113
Seems to be a matter of cost saving while also offering a cheaper option for passengers.

Below is another article that discusses the narrow body type airplanes like the 737-Max and how they are being used on long haul flights.

Keep in mind that being in a bigger/wider plane does not guarantee more room in your seat. You can be just as cramped although I do get you may not feel as boxed in when comparing to being in a narrower plane.

Agreed, but bigger planes have more restrooms, more facilities to do catering, more storage space for things like water. And I think the decision-making process is different. You'll put up with a tiny seat and even no restroom for an hour or two. But for 7-8 hours, it's too long and you will be happy to pay more. I guess it's like cars, some are designed mainly for buzzing around the city and whilst they can do a long journey, it wouldn't be your first choice.

It's interesting that Ryanair, now the world's largest airline, has not managed to do a long-haul service. Article here from their CEO saying why he thinks it wouldn't work:

https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-long-haul-low-cost/

I did read somewhere that low-cost longer routes also tend to work better in Asia as people tend to be more slender in stature there so will fit into a smaller seat pitch.
 

MariaRubia

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2019
2,348
3,139
113
That would be very convenient for Boeing, wouldn't it. Send all thee customers software upgrades. Hmmm

That's what they did. They upgraded the software on all the planes. If you read up on it, it was a software error, the computers stopped the pilots from being able to do something essential and basically crashed the plane. So upgrading the software fixed the problem. After those two crashes there haven't been any more.
 

william webster

Platinum
Jan 16, 2009
30,247
4,330
113
I would never fly the defective 737 max. It was modified, not rehauled. It is a faulty design. Folks are playing Russian roulette here
That's what they did. They upgraded the software on all the planes. If you read up on it, it was a software error, the computers stopped the pilots from being able to do something essential and basically crashed the plane. So upgrading the software fixed the problem. After those two crashes there haven't been any more.

Problem solved plus no need worry about being seated beside Hijo
 

MiamiDRGuy

Bronze
May 19, 2013
1,415
471
83
351179490_6191376840943215_4139467221854780797_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: aarhus

MariaRubia

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2019
2,348
3,139
113

I'm not seeing this as very low cost. The European airlines like TUI regularly do for example London to Punta Cana for about $480 return and that involves a 9 hour flight each way on a Dreamliner with meals and a 23kg checked bag provided. Arajet is charging $470 for a a shorter return flight with no bag and no meals and a far inferior plane and seat.
 

carlos

Super Moderator
Staff member
May 29, 2002
3,785
764
113
Agreed, but bigger planes have more restrooms, more facilities to do catering, more storage space for things like water. And I think the decision-making process is different. You'll put up with a tiny seat and even no restroom for an hour or two. But for 7-8 hours, it's too long and you will be happy to pay more. I guess it's like cars, some are designed mainly for buzzing around the city and whilst they can do a long journey, it wouldn't be your first choice.

It's interesting that Ryanair, now the world's largest airline, has not managed to do a long-haul service. Article here from their CEO saying why he thinks it wouldn't work:

https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-long-haul-low-cost/

I did read somewhere that low-cost longer routes also tend to work better in Asia as people tend to be more slender in stature there so will fit into a smaller seat pitch.


You make some good points. Your “ slender” comment is not far off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MariaRubia