Air Serbia’s CEO, Jiri Marek, has ruled out the launch of Miami flights for the 2026 summer season, noting that the carrier will instead focus on consolidating its newly announced Toronto service. While Miami remains on the airline’s radar, Mr Marek told EX-YU Aviation News the route currently carries too many uncertainties. “We explained several times that for next summer we decided to go only with Toronto. First, it’s better to pursue stable growth rather than overly rapid expansion, as we don’t want to overstretch the long-haul fleet”, the CEO said. Mr Marek described Toronto as “a no-brainer” for the airline’s 2026 strategy. “It should be profitable in the summer. We will see how it goes and whether we will extend it into the winter”, he noted.
Asked about Miami, Mr Marek said the route remains appealing but currently does not offer a sufficiently strong business case. “Miami is a difficult decision because it’s a very thin business case. You are relying on multiple business segments. It’s not only diaspora, which is very small”. He also pointed to challenges within the partnership and revenue ecosystem that would underpin such a route. “You have connectivity with American Airlines, where the question is not only that you sign the cooperation, but whether you have access to their availability so you can sell it. You have cargo, which, with current tariffs, can go up and down. So, if you take all this into consideration, it’s a high-risk decision”, Mr Marek explained.
The CEO added that market conditions today differ significantly from the post-pandemic surge in long-haul demand. “If you were in a very clean, pent-up demand market like after Covid, then for sure we would already be flying to Miami. Now you are in a situation where you need to see where the market will develop, because everybody speaks about 2026 as a year of the unknown”, Mr Marek said.
Air Serbia’s CEO stressed that long-haul expansion carries major financial consequences - positive or negative. “Long haul is a big investment. You’re dealing with potential outcomes that can amount to several million euros in either direction. So, I would approach it with a great deal of caution. However, aviation is highly dynamic, and we have demonstrated our agility. If we see positive trends emerge, things can certainly change”, Mr Marek said. He noted that global US demand indicators remain slightly below pre-pandemic levels.
If I had penny for each time AirSerbia and cautious were mentioned together I would have enough pennies to retrofit YU-ARB
ReplyDeleteLOL, so true!!!
DeleteThat's why they are profitable.
Delete+1000
DeleteCautious about this, cautious about that... he's especially cautious about pilot salaries, that is why they had to make recent cuts to their network.
^ You are right. They should be adventurous like Croatia Airlines and get 15 new planes and bring themselves to the verge of bankruptcy.
DeleteNo but they can use some of their profits to attract pilots. With the current strategy their planes are not flying to the max, just look at the E95 utilization.
DeleteYou guys are very funny. But an airline which is gov owned should aim not to be profitable but to operate at net zero, and providing the best connection of the country, even if that means running some lines at a loss. The crutial part here is NET ZERO, so no OU is not an airline you can look onto as a goal. But JU itself could and should risk it more when they are making millions in profit.
DeleteYou want JU to be on the verge of unprofitability? No, a government owned airline should not aim for that. I really can't believe what some people write here.
DeleteI actually agree with what XYZ said. If the airline is a privately owned entity, then their only goal is profitability. When its publicly owned asset, the priorities of an airline changes to more national goals. Ending the year with 45mio of profit does nothing on a long run. If they spent 40million on running less profitable but needed lines (the likes of Miami for example), the overall benefit is larger than 40 million (turism, business, connectivity). Having airline at net zero might be risky, but having a limit of the profits makes sense when the company is a gov focus
DeleteAnd that's why you people don't run airlines. Miami is "needed line"? Since when?
DeleteThe funny thing is, if they were at 0 or unprofitable, you would all be screaming how that is unacceptable.
DeleteThere is difference between limiting yourself to 5mio in profit and unprofitable
Delete@09:08 im sure you are very happy with how the current government spends your tax dinars. Strictly Government run airlines that dont care for profit often end up doing very silly things. JU has actually walked a good line between connectivity for which is essentially a really small market in europe, and being profitable which is not that common for a state enterprise.
DeleteExpecting a government-owned airline to be “adventurous” while operating at net zero is absurd because meaningful aviation risk by definition requires upfront losses and capital buffers that net-zero operations do not allow. "Adventure” is just gambling with taxpayer money. You cannot demand bold loss leading expansion while also insisting on zero subsidies.
DeleteI'm shocked what people on an aviation website are writing. That a profitable airlines should aim to be break even so you can randomly boast that they fly to the moon. Crazy.
Delete@XYZ No, not at all! Any entity within the free market econony should be guided by the maximization of profit, period! If the state is willing to go after an iterests of its in the field of aviation, it should pay from its own budget. That is the golden rule of good finances. Companies cannot work with "keeping profits at minimmum" as their guideline, that is the road to hell!
DeleteMiami would look great on a route map but that doesn’t pay the bills.
DeleteThey are competing with for-profit entities, so for sure they have to think of profitability. After all, that creates space for business improvements
DeleteWhoever is a regular on JU knows that they are not spending their money right. The service does not match the average price or their profitability.
DeleteLook at LO. A government owned airline with a great service. They just brought back free service onboard on European routes.
Flew long haul LO and it was everything but great service.
DeleteBig surprise, NOOOOOT!
ReplyDeleteYou do realise they are launching a new long haul route in 2026 for a third consecutive year? Toronto not enough for you right?
DeleteIt's a summer seasonal flights operating for like 3 months. If you can't make that route work then you shouldn't be in the long-haul business.
DeleteI am sure YOU would make it work.
DeleteLet the meltdown begin.
ReplyDeleteIt already started (see above)
DeleteMakes total sense. Toronto is a logical step with a huge diaspora and strong O&D and many have been saying that here for a while. Better to make one route work well than gamble on Miami.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteToronto was long overdue and should have been launched years ago.
ReplyDeleteToronto as a summer-only route initially also seems smart. Test the market, then decide on winter once real data comes in.
Delete+1
DeleteI’m a bit disappointed about Miami
ReplyDeleteToronto was no-go till recently, now it's a no-brainer... They should communicate better, especially long haul info, but when you check their long haul approach it looks fine. If we had dozen airlines flying long haul to Belgrade it would be a question what's happening with JU but they are actually leading the growth in that department...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
DeleteUntil they announced Toronto, Miami was always named as next logical step, while Toronto was ruled out as 'too seasonal'.
Now somehow, Toronto turned out to be no-brainer, albeit summer seasonal only, while Miami is absolute no-go.
Way to many contradictories in their communication in a span of just couple of months.
^ If you had read any of the articles here, they constantly said that Miami and Toronto are the only two logical destinations left to launch in North America. What they did say is that Toronto is very seasonal. They never ruled it out.
DeleteExactly. Few months ago Bosko Rupic announced that “Miami is next point of long haul expansion “. We just need to announce beginning date by the end of year “. Also, they were waiting for the consulte opening, which is already due. Probably because of diaspora, “which is very small”. Someone is playing with the passengers
DeleteHe actually said no such thing. It would be interesting if you could provide a link to that.
DeleteIt was reported on here, you can look for the link yourself Anon 11.31 since you are doubting others.
DeleteI looked for it but I can't find anything similar. Please be so kind to post a link to your claims which are increasingly looking like a fabrication.
DeleteI also wander why our Ministry of Foreign Affairs is wasting tax-payers money by opening Consulate of Serbia in a place with "very small diaspora"?
DeleteThey waste it on a very very long list of other things too..
DeleteObviously the American is hesitant about the code share, which should allow for the connectivity to the Caribbean and South America. Without those passengers, it is truly a high risk endeavor.
ReplyDeleteHope it materializes soon!
Wouldn't it be easier to transfer to Carribbean and S.America somewhere in Europe, like Madrid, London, Lisbon?
DeleteMiami without strong AA feed makes very little sense.
DeleteNot entirely, especially not the Caribbean. American can fly to all sort of small island and smaller cities in the Caribbean and Central America offering options that no European airlines flying long haul can do. Also they have frequencies that are unmatched by any Spanish or other European carrier.
DeleteLondon is a no-go due to visas, even transit visas.
Holding a US visa allows Serbian passport holders to transit Heathrow without a DATV.
DeleteIf US demand is still below pre-pandemic levels then launching Miami now would be reckless. Better to wait.
ReplyDeleteUSA demand from Europe is about 20% down. JU is smart to wait and delay MIA service for now. YYZ could do well over the winter if they do 1x a week service. The only problem with one weekly service is the crew rotation .
DeleteIt's not a problem at all. YYZ and ORD crews with one or two weekly frequencies could be combined/deadheaded. JAT used to do it with ORD/CLE/DTW crews 40 years ago. Plenty of companies do it today, big time
DeleteConsidering that Serbia has some of the highest US imposed tariffs in the world and that the US recently adopted a new sanction law for the Western Balkans which is widely expected to sanction members of the Serbian government, it really would be odd for them to launch Miami.
ReplyDeleteWho would have thought that orange man would impact JU expansion.
ReplyDeletealways cautious, sometimes too cautious. Miami could work if done properly.
ReplyDeleteDisappointed
ReplyDeleteFunny how Miami was “almost certain” a year ago, and now it’s suddenly too risky.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteResponding to changed economics and travel patterns is responsible business which should be applauded.
Delete+1
DeleteMeant for 10.30
DeleteI still think they’re missing an opportunity. Eastern European carriers are expanding in the US while Air Serbia hesitates.
ReplyDeleteWhich ones?
DeleteIt is too early for JU.
DeleteThen after everyone else would have expanded PLUS flights to Russia and kraine allowed again it will be too late.
"Eastern European carriers" you can only mean LOT to San Francisco? Which is not really a comparable market or operation with JU.
Delete@10.09. The only one is LOT which serves a market of 37 million people and a diaspora of close to 10 million in the US.
Deleteand their "expansion" constitutes one new route.
DeleteNo, he meant Croatia Airlines. Uuups, sorry, I thought it was about Minken and Vrankvurt expansion 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
DeleteSize of market is not crucial. Examples elsewhere....
Delete@15:21 I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.
DeleteI’d rather see Chicago or even New York expanded before opening Miami.
ReplyDeleteThey should also expand frequencies to China too.
DeleteThe Chinese won't allow that unless their carriers want to increase their frequencies first.
DeleteJU should definitely launch PEK (if somehow China allowed it), MIA and as correctly pointed out increase frequencies to the 4 existing long-haul routes.
Boring but probably correct decision.
ReplyDeleteBetter exciting and paid for by Serbian tax payers? JU's management is really showing some maturity I feel.
DeleteMarek sounds like a CFO not a CEO. Very conservative approach.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of thinking is why Air Serbia is still profitable.
DeleteYeah, beyond idiotic.
DeleteThat kind of thinking is why there is no Air Serbia in the Middle East or Abu Dhabi and why they have spare A330's sitting all the time.
You really think they can fight against MEB3 in their fortresses, with their range of connections and their dumping prices and their quality of premium products?
DeletePIR how come so many other airlines in Europe manage to fly to the Middle East?
DeleteJU on the other hand does not dare fly to TLV, BEY, CAI. Who's is the big threat to them in these markets?
14.07
DeleteTLV and BEY are safety risk at the moment. Insurance for the two would eat all possible income/profit. CAI, fully agree should have started long ago. But was primarily referring to AUH/DOH/DXB and 330 which was mentioned "sitting all the time"
Neither BEY or TLV are safety risks at the moment. That's why dozens of airlines relaunched flights. They need to find a more convincing excuse for that.
Delete"They need to find a more convincing excuse for that." You make JU sound like it is consciously avoiding wanting to make (potential) profit. When, and if their planners think they can make it work I'm sure they will. But easy on the "excuse" vibes.
DeleteToronto should have been launched before Guangzhou ever happened.
ReplyDeleteWhy when the route is highly seasonal?
Delete“Highly seasonal and extremely directional”, as Marek stated few months ago
DeleteGuangzhou is the smartest thing they did since starting the expansion
DeleteThink smart. First sort out on board product especially in business and launch the loyalty program with reciprocal arrangements with some big airlines. Then you can attract the frequent flyers and business travellers. Long haul is a different game and these are key to long term success which will allow JU to be confident to launch more long haul routes.
ReplyDeleteBetter to add frequencies on existing US routes than gamble on a new one.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what Marek is talking about, they were presenting MIA as a guaranteed success not so long ago, but I’m glad YYZ got its chance. Go Toronto!
ReplyDeleteA year ago Toronto was risky because it was seasonal and Miami was a given.
DeleteMy guess is Miami is coming anyway. Perhaps in late 2026.
If they are not sure about MIA now, ok. things change in business..But then return the plane, you don't need 4 widebody, you need barely even 3...I hope they not gonna keep soo many planes for another year of waiting for the possible new route to open..
DeleteAbout the ad bellow, could the DC-10 really make it non-stop from BEG to LAX?
ReplyDeleteFlights to Los Angeles were operated via Chicago. The scheduled service launched in 1987. The ad, from 1984, shows Los Angeles as a charter destination operated under the Air Yugoslavia code. Several charters were operated that year for the Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
DeleteBEG to LAX with max load, definitely not. But, delivery flight of the first JAT DC-10 was NONSTOP from Santa Monica (LAX aerea) to BEG, ferry/empty/min load, and duration of little under 13 hours, being World record for the lenght on the type at that time. And, MD11 was supposed to make BEG-LAX nonstop, which was one of the reasons why it was ordered. It was supposed to overtake Australia services too, with one stop only, in Colombo. Then, some people decided we should fight wars....
Delete