NEWS FLASH
Macedonia and Jordan have discussed the potential introduction of flights between the two countries as part of an initiative to strengthen ties. The Macedonian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bujar Osmani, and Jordan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, agreed to examine the feasibility of scheduled flights between the two countries and facilitate the issuance of visas. They stressed a nonstop air service would enhance economic, tourism, commercial and cultural cooperation between the two countries.
We are literally reading on a daily basis about North Macedonia discussing new flights. I wonder if anything will come out of this.
ReplyDeleteIt's great isn't it?
DeleteThings are moving forward, let's hope something will materialise!
However, they should focus on getting flights to major hubs first (MUC, FRA, AMS, LHR, CDG, DXB, DOH etc.)
Royal Jordanian is not a major player in the middle east, but if that company was in Europe with similar fleet, number of destinations and network than everyone would be like GO ROYAL JORDANIAN.
DeleteAmman is practical for transfers and Royal Jordanian has a decent network, so why not? Its odd that they did not resume Belgrade flights after all of these years.
Amman practical for transfers to whom? Maybe for the people in the region, yes. They have very few potential transfer destinations if you are in Europe e.g. Bangkok, Hong Kong or Kuala Lumpur and that's it basically. They are a good airline but in the case of Skopje, traffic is expected to be O&D between both countries so the air fares should also be kinda affordable.
DeleteDepends where you go, AMM is spacious, modern and practical for transfers to other ME destinations, mediterranean and Royal Jordanian offers some long haul destinations (Way more than AirSerbia). It will do the job for one or two flights a week. However, Royal Jordanian flights would make more sense in BEG, rather than in Skopje.
DeleteYes, for sure flights to Belgrade make more sense than Skopje. But, I wouldn't classify Amman as a transfer airport because RJ have a much more limited network and frequencies.
DeleteForget abt Royal Jordanian. Wizzair has many flights to Amman and Aqaba from many european cities. I suggest to change the picture of the poat.
DeleteCorrection: post
DeleteMeanwhile, you can still fly quite cheap from Sofia to Aqaba with Ryanair in winter. Eilat in Israel didn't seem to go very well in the past. Many people claim the sea is more beautiful on the Jordanian side and also there are more interesting sites. Quite cheaper as well.
ReplyDeleteLol, it's the same sea, plus the snorkeling near the Princess Reef on the Israeli side is beyond comparison... Eilat is Las Vegas compared to the ruins of Aqaba. Not to even talk about shopping and restaurants which are nearly non-existant in Aqaba. Cheaper yes, but not by much. Talking about sights, you have Jerusalem, the holiest Christian and Jewish site in the world and third holiest Muslim site, plus Tel Aviv and the Mediterranean, Nazareth, Dead Sea along the way etc. In Jordan you have only Petra and the Red Canyon, that's about it.
DeleteYou slightly forgot to add Wadi Rum and saying "only" Petra a world famous historic sight and comparing it with some fancy "Las Vegas" buildings...come on, you gotta be serious...
DeleteAs you saw above, I am talking about the region and not the whole country. You are including Jerusalem and Nazareth which are way up north.
Also, why does Aqaba have more flights compared to Eilat, if Eilat is "Las Vegas"? Do you really think Europeans wanna go on a holiday to see historic sites dating back centuries ago or some Las Vegas buildings?
I know it's the same sea, but the Jordanian shore is obviously better. Same if you go Iguazu falls where the Brasilian side is prettier compared to the Argentinian even though they are the "same falls" following your logic. Just because 2 or more countries share the same landmark doesn't necessarily mean it's the same.
Eilat has more developed infrastracture. Aqaba has charm. Eilat has western like shopping malls and glittering lights, Aqaba has thousands of small shops in typical oriental bazaars. Eilat has not that friendly and pretty much stressed local people, Aqaba has warm, open and relaxed people. Eilat is very expensive, Aqaba is much cheaper, even cheaper than other Jordanian cities, being Special economic zone with lower or no taxes. Been to both. My vote goes to Aqaba, no doubt.
DeleteIt's a matter of taste, but as far as Iguazu, Argentinian side is objectively prettier: the national park around the falls with the myriad of small waterfalls is in Argentina and you can literally stand in front of the Garganta del Diablo on the Argentinian side, whereas you can only observe it from a distance from Brazil.
DeleteAqaba is way too far from Amman, about 6 hour bus ride (without a transfer to the city itself). Amman is a center of 4+ milion people and its an economic and financial center of the country.....soooo charters will do Aqaba, however, Amman is a hub of whole HKJ.
DeleteAgain, similar to Aqaba and Eilat - it's all a matter of taste.
DeleteIf you are going to visit a waterfall like Iguazú, you are expecting to see a waterfall, not a park where you can see almost everywhere. Just saying. Garganta del Diablo is nice, but from the Brazilian part you see the entirety of the falls.
Nothing to do with ex-yu to Jordan flights, but I must back up again @An.13.06. Been to Foz de Iguacu, and in my opinion, Argentinian part is much bigger, nicer, and closer to the Falls. Even locals, Brasileros, cross to Argentinian side to visit the Falls. Of course, the matter of taste shouldn't be discussed and I understand there are people who prefer Brasilian side
DeletePozdrav, what do you think? Should Skopje opt for Amman or Aqaba? Which one would bring more benefit?
DeleteAmman is capital, much bigger city, and RJ hub. But I am not sure if economic cooperation between the two countries and RJ limited transfer options are enough to have decent LF and good yields on AMM route. On the other hand, I met big Macedonian tourist groups in Aqaba. Not saying either is better, just in case of Amman think it should be operated by legacy carrier with regional aircraft (RJ), while in case of Aqaba it should be LCC, with bigger aircraft (Wizz)
DeleteGreat analysis and points. I agree that both destinations have potential, yet very different as you mentioned. I personally think Skopje can try with Aqaba first.
Delete