Resident only fares clarification for Aerolineas Argentina

Thanks for all the replies.

Would be nice to know from someone who has recently flown on a "resident only" Aerolineas Argentina flight bought through their website. Did you have any trouble during check in?


As far as FlyBondi, I flew them last year and they were fine. Super attentive flight attendants. On the other hand, my Aerolineas Argentina crew could have give zero fucks about anybody on the plane. Reminded me of United's crew :)

I'm just trying to get the cheapest flight price, and right now Aerolineas Argentina has it, but it has that warning message before purchasing.

flybondi's flight attendants are just being nice to distract you from the near crash landings
 
I must say that as far as state airlines are concerned, you could do worse than Aerolineas.

They are usually on time, have a stellar safety record and even on routes where LAN flies compare favorably service wise. I have several clients who fly domestic frequently and refuse to fly with anyone except AR.

Even on international routes, AR beats AA service-wise hands down. Particularly if you’re flying with children. Argentines respect children and parents. Americans, and AA in general - how should I put this nicely? - do not.

The LCC’s, I don’t know where to start.
Flybondi has had a few close calls in just over a year of operating? I'd stay away.
The rest I'd be more comfortable with safety-wise, but can amateur hour in all sorts of small ways.
I refer to Andes and Norwegian, not so sure about Avianca.

Regarding the resident-only fares, they do still exist but are few and far between.
By all means purchase from an agent (ahem!) if you want to be absolutely positive regarding your trip, but generally speaking your odds are good.

Be careful luggage wise, every airline is different here and make sure you know what you’re getting. Again, an agent may be helpful with this.

Travel agents are unable to evaluate the safety and soundness of something so complicated as an airplane. A travel agent's testimony to the favorability of a domestic airline with the highest market share is suspect.

Two weeks ago, perhaps 100,000 people in Buenos Aires were without electricity. Show me one piece of complex infrastructure in this city that is well-maintained and I will step onto an AA airplane.
 
Travel agents are unable to evaluate the safety and soundness of something so complicated as an airplane. A travel agent's testimony to the favorability of a domestic airline with the highest market share is suspect.

Two weeks ago, perhaps 100,000 people in Buenos Aires were without electricity. Show me one piece of complex infrastructure in this city that is well-maintained and I will step onto an AA airplane.

as i mentioned before, my company only allows us to fly on Aerolineas and LAN for business. this is a result of our own internal audit of aircraft operators, if they don't pass our criteria they aren't approved for travel. it's a pretty rigorous audit process. is it a perfect process? of course not, and if an airline wanted to game the system i am sure they could. but for me personally, it gives me some reassurance that at least someone has reviewed their practices.
 
Travel agents are unable to evaluate the safety and soundness of something so complicated as an airplane. A travel agent's testimony to the favorability of a domestic airline with the highest market share is suspect.

Two weeks ago, perhaps 100,000 people in Buenos Aires were without electricity. Show me one piece of complex infrastructure in this city that is well-maintained and I will step onto an AA airplane.

Do with it what you will. I think it’s rather obvious that a travel agent makes no claim whatsoever to having inspected a plane. That said, industry-wide Aerolineas enjoys a solid reputation for safety. I can also personally attest to having less problems with them with delays and the like than with any other domestic airline.

That they enjoy the highest domestic share is utterly irrelevant to that, and may have something more to do with their serving an order of magnitude more routes than any other airline in the domestic market. There is no route I know of that another airline flies more (or as) frequently than they do, and there are tons of routes that only they serve. What does that have to do with my assessment of their safety record?!

That several clients of mine who are seasoned flyers will not use any other airline - very specifically including LAN (now LATAM) is again a fact, do with it what you will. They are more punctual than any other airline. They are less fussy about carry-on baggage. Etc.

I’ve never heard of a direct flight from Salta to BsAs make an unscheduled stop in Tucumán to pick up passengers, as a relative had happen with LATAM a couple years back.

Just in the last weeks, I’ve had to deal with:
  • an Andes flight being delayed by about 10 hours (by no means an isolated incident);
  • a LATAM flight in which the passengers arrived at the airport on time only to learn that the flight had been oversold and that they were being rebooked for the next day’s flight, and that it was their fault for not having checked in online earlier (I got it resolved, don’t even ask how);
  • a booking with Norwegian in which passengers going from Bariloche to Iguazú on a single ticket with a 4h stop in BsAs had to collect and recheck their baggage in AEP, just because;
  • etc. I don’t have any Flybondi stories because I emphatically recommend passengers not fly them, based just on published incidents.
Nothing of the sort with Aerolineas in any comparable time frame.

Me personally? When I came here I definitely adhered to “it’s Argentine ergo it must be crap” mentality as much as anyone else here. Over time of working in the business, and observing several of my clients, including business class passengers, who thought nothing of, say, adding a few hundred dollars per ticket to travel at the time they preferred, making very clear that they don't prefer American to Aerolineas (and on the contrary), I started to moderate my own biases. A year and a half ago I took the plunge and went with my family to NY with Aerolineas for the first time, mainly for the cuotas sin interes. I was very favorably impressed, the plane was newer than American’s, the staff an order of magnitude friendlier (we travel with children, and that is where the difference in attitude is most noticeable).
 
Aren't on time departure/arrival figures (as %s) available as a measure of efficiency? How does AAr compare?
 
Aren't on time departure/arrival figures (as %s) available as a measure of efficiency? How does AAr compare?

There are. Here is the first one I found online, ranking 137 airlines.
Aerolineas comes in at 60, ahead of Air Canada, JetBlue, British, Lufthansa, Swiss, Virgin Atlantic, Turkish etc.
Again, for a state airline you could do far worse.
 
There are. Here is the first one I found online, ranking 137 airlines.
Aerolineas comes in at 60, ahead of Air Canada, JetBlue, British, Lufthansa, Swiss, Virgin Atlantic, Turkish etc.
Again, for a state airline you could do far worse.

Interesting that you chose to compare the on-time-performance (OTP) of aerolineas argetinas to turkish.

I do not dispute what you wrote. At the same time, I would like to point out that the OTP must not be looked at as an isolated factor but rather in the operational context, so that one can make a solid conclusion (like a doctor looking at patient's history + symptoms + objective findings + other factors before making a good diagnosis).

In other words:
Aerolineas Argentinas has 33 active (+1 seasonal) domestic routes. It also has 1 active route to each Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela; 2 active routes to Uruguay; 6 active (+1 seasonal) routes to Brasil; 2 active routes to the EU (Madrid and Rome) and 2 active routes to the US.

Turkish has almost 50 active domestic routes, and they fly to more countries than any other airline in the world.

Now, let's imagine hypothetically we are all self-paying passengers and that Aerolineas and Turkish fly to the same destination X, which is a 10hr flight on board wide aircraft. Let's assume that there is no price difference and the departure/landing times are comparably convenient. Other than the on-time-performance you quoted (as the entire network average), I would struggle finding any other factor (catering? ground service? lounges?) to convince this hypothetical self-paying passenger to fly Aerolineas as opposed to Turkish (or Swiss, or Lufthansa for that matter). As for the British Airways (and American Airlines for that matter), fortunately, my (financial) loyalty to them stopped long time ago.

Cheers!
 
Aren't on time departure/arrival figures (as %s) available as a measure of efficiency? How does AAr compare?


In Latin America this is how the latest on-time-performance report (January 2019) looks like:

1. Copa Airlines 89.79%
2 LATAM Airlines Group LA 85.60%
3 Azul AD 85.21%
4 Volaris Y4 82.04%
5 Avianca Brazil O6 81.15%
6 Aerolineas Argentinas AR 80.51%
7 Aeromexico AM 80.45%
8 Sky Airline H2 79.89%
9 GOL Linhas Aereas G3 79.70%
10 Caribbean Airlines 79.24%
 
Aren't on time departure/arrival figures (as %s) available as a measure of efficiency? How does AAr compare?

*Annual OTP measured June '17 - May '18:

LATAM Airlines Ecuador 89.4
COPA 88.2
Qantas 85.7
Qatar 85.5
Japan Airlines 84.5
Alitalia 83.9
Singapore Airlines 83.8
LATAM Airlines Brasil 83.4
KLM 81.9
Emirates 80.9
United 80.7
American 79.4
Iberia 79.2
Aerolineas Argentinas 77.8
British 77.1
LATAM Airlines Group 76.7
Swiss 75.5
Turkish 75.1
Lufthansa 73.9
Air France 72.9
 
Interesting that you chose to compare the on-time-performance (OTP) of aerolineas argetinas to turkish.

I do not dispute what you wrote. At the same time, I would like to point out that the OTP must not be looked at as an isolated factor but rather in the operational context, so that one can make a solid conclusion (like a doctor looking at patient's history + symptoms + objective findings + other factors before making a good diagnosis).

In other words:
Aerolineas Argentinas has 33 active (+1 seasonal) domestic routes. It also has 1 active route to each Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela; 2 active routes to Uruguay; 6 active (+1 seasonal) routes to Brasil; 2 active routes to the EU (Madrid and Rome) and 2 active routes to the US.

Turkish has almost 50 active domestic routes, and they fly to more countries than any other airline in the world.

Now, let's imagine hypothetically we are all self-paying passengers and that Aerolineas and Turkish fly to the same destination X, which is a 10hr flight on board wide aircraft. Let's assume that there is no price difference and the departure/landing times are comparably convenient. Other than the on-time-performance you quoted (as the entire network average), I would struggle finding any other factor (catering? ground service? lounges?) to convince this hypothetical self-paying passenger to fly Aerolineas as opposed to Turkish (or Swiss, or Lufthansa for that matter). As for the British Airways (and American Airlines for that matter), fortunately, my (financial) loyalty to them stopped long time ago.

Cheers!

Good points all. A few thoughts:

1. I referred to OTP because that was what had been asked. Also because it's much easier to measure than subjective factors like convenience and niceness etc. You can talk about seat pitch, seats per row, width of seat etc, but it's much harder to make a comprehensive comparison on a per-route basis. OTP is just a much easier metric to get and grasp.
That doesn't mean that the other factors - seat dimensions, cleanliness and general “feel” of the plane, quality of meals, service - are less important. They're just either harder to compare, or are altogether subjective. But they matter, and how.
Even lounges matter hugely for a specific subset of the travelling class.
2. Aerolineas uses pretty new planes for NY (and Miami?), I believe they use older planes for their European routes.
3. Turkish is widely praised for their seats and service, it's considered a very good airline.
4. The main argument in favor of American/British/Iberia comes down to 2 things: network and loyalty programs. American/British/Iberia, together with LATAM, form part of oneworld, which mean: more flights to all destinations (AA has 4-5 daily flights from here, British 1 daily, Iberia 1-2 daily), and more chances for miles accrual.
The latter matters much more to actual frequent flyers. If you don't fly more than once a year, you'll have to fly so many times to get enough miles to be worth anything, that it's just not worth paying more.
 
Back
Top