ITA Airways, the national airline of Italy, has just unveiled its newest transatlantic route, launching in the spring of 2026. It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, given bigger developments at the airline.
In this post:
ITA Airways will fly from Rome to Houston as of 2026
As of May 1, 2026, ITA Airways will launch flights between Rome (FCO) and Houston (IAH). The service will initially operate 3x weekly, before operating 5x weekly as of June 1, 2026. The service will operate with the following schedule:
AZ636 Rome to Houston departing 10:20AM arriving 3:40PM
AZ637 Houston to Rome departing 6:10PM arriving 11:50AM (+1 day)
The 5,682-mile flight is blocked at 12hr20min westbound and 10hr40min eastbound. ITA Airways will use an Airbus A330-900neo for the service, featuring 291 seats. That includes 30 business class seats, 24 premium economy seats, and 237 economy seats. Personally I’m a big fan of ITA Airways’ business class, and think it’s among the best experiences across the Atlantic.
Houston will be ITA Airways’ eighth destination in the United States, after Boston (BOS), Chicago (ORD), Los Angeles (LAX), Miami (MIA), New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Washington (IAD).
This coincides with ITA Airways transitioning to Star Alliance
Keep in mind that historically, ITA Airways (and predecessor Alitalia) belonged to the SkyTeam alliance. However, Lufthansa Group has invested in ITA, and this has caused the Italian carrier to modify its strategy.
ITA Airways has now left SkyTeam, and plans to join Star Alliance in the near future. The long term goal is for ITA Airways to even join the Star Alliance transatlantic joint venture, which otherwise includes United, Air Canada, Lufthansa, SWISS, etc.
With that in mind, the Houston route makes perfect sense. Not only is Houston a huge market as such, but it’s also a mega-hub for United, so there will be lots of connectivity opportunities. This will be a great, efficient, one-stop option for getting between many parts of the United States and Rome. Houston is also one of the only hubs out of which United doesn’t fly to Rome, so ITA won’t even have any direct competition in the market.
Here’s how ITA Airways CEO Joerg Eberhart describes this new route:
“We are proud to announce that for the first time in history Rome and Houston will be connected with a direct flight. This is our ninth North American destination and will further enrich the airline’s intercontinental network, one of ITA Airways’ key assets: long-haul operations not only support profitability but also stimulate short-haul traffic, strengthening the Rome Fiumicino hub.”
“With this new route, we consolidate our expansion in the U.S. market, our most important international market. The extensive offer from Rome allows us to be the reference carrier from the U.S. to Italy and, via Rome, to Europe and the Mediterranean for the Italian community and other major communities in the region. The new destination is also part of a broader international growth strategy, culminating in ITA Airways joining the Star Alliance in 2026, within the integration process into the Lufthansa Group.”
Bottom line
ITA Airways will add a new route between Rome and Houston as of the spring of 2026, with an Airbus A330-900neo. This is a logical addition to ITA’s network, when you consider that the airline is in the process of joining the Star Alliance, and hopefully, the Star Alliance transatlantic joint venture.
Houston is a massive hub for United, and it’s also one of the only hubs out of which United doesn’t serve Rome, so this seems like a logical market to add.
What do you make of ITA Airways’ plans to fly to Houston?
Dumb and funny of ITA.
Rome will never be a hub. Poor cheap tourist mediterranean village. They think they finally found a way to be profitable and think test know how a hub works. Hahha truly naive. They don't know waves and economics. They know nothing about economics and demand. Milan can support a first class flag carrier like AF & BA. Not a second rate half baked poor tourist blue airline. This flight...
Dumb and funny of ITA.
Rome will never be a hub. Poor cheap tourist mediterranean village. They think they finally found a way to be profitable and think test know how a hub works. Hahha truly naive. They don't know waves and economics. They know nothing about economics and demand. Milan can support a first class flag carrier like AF & BA. Not a second rate half baked poor tourist blue airline. This flight will never work aside from summer tourism. Nobody in their right mind will fly to Rome and feed short hauls through there. Milan is way better and an actual hub. Even JOERS EBERHART said Milan is the perfect place to build a hub.
Milan is way better and bigger, more refined, with much more O&D traffic. Richer, more people, better economy, reliable, efficient, cold, and it currently wins and thrives on its own forces.
The only expat-oriented, rich, manufacturing, megapolis in Central Europe.
Ugh, this is the last thing Europe needs - another way for seppos to spread their privilege, entitlement, and audacity everywhere. Hate this idea from ITA.
Agreed. Seppos are so ignorant and obnoxious. Are least they are ruining Rome and not Milan.
Seppos shouldn't be ruining anywhere. But yet they do globally.
Houston billionaire Tilman Fertitta is now the ambassador to Italy, and I imagine he lobbied ITA a bit for the nonstop. Big win for Houston.
Mafia yanks
I just hope LH’s investment doesn’t lead to cuts/watering down of the ITA soft product. Retain the spritzes and multiple course meals!
Oh keep dreaming. Everything that stupid wog of Carsten Spohr touches turns to shit. Anything involving LH Group is terrible
This airline is inconsequential. Totally unimpressed.
Fake Jessicunt
?? Okay thanks AeroB13a.
Honestly, we all are. Milan is a much better choice for a hub. ITA shouldn't exist as it's not well managed.
Great news. iAH has not had any new European destination in a decade or two, it was about time. Now we just need a direct flight to Madrid, iberia? United? Maybe?
Hah - so cute ! They think they'll turn Rome into a hub when everyone knows Milan is way better suited. ITA is an ugly brand and now it's a minor Lufthansa feeder airline anyway. Shame, because AZ could've merged with KLM in 1998 and become a huge player.
How is AF-KLM-ITA superior to LH-LX-ITA?
Rome already is a hub and in a good spot, probably much more O/D traffic than Milan.
AF KLM AZ is far superior (and I'll have you know in 1998 KLM was supposed to merge with Alitalia with a hub in MXP and AMS instead of Air France at CDG-AMS). AF KLM has great service on short and long haul and is truly premium. Anything Lufthansa Group touches turns to low cost sh*t. And the location of MXP/CDG/AMS covers everything unlike MUC/ZRH/LIN/FCO/VIE/BRU (too many scattered hubs and weak economics).
Even Joerg Eberhart...
AF KLM AZ is far superior (and I'll have you know in 1998 KLM was supposed to merge with Alitalia with a hub in MXP and AMS instead of Air France at CDG-AMS). AF KLM has great service on short and long haul and is truly premium. Anything Lufthansa Group touches turns to low cost sh*t. And the location of MXP/CDG/AMS covers everything unlike MUC/ZRH/LIN/FCO/VIE/BRU (too many scattered hubs and weak economics).
Even Joerg Eberhart said Milan has way better numbers than even Frankfurt and Munich and is the right place for a hub. Rome Fiumicino is not supposed to be a hub. Milan Malpensa is literally designed to be a hub and it is already a great airport with much more potential.
And no, there is very little O/D demand in Rome. It's actually the opposite of what you say. To boost Rome to Milan's level you would need all of southern Italy.
The Milan region/catchment area has 12 million people. All of which are richer than Rome. Plus, demand in Milan is strong year round and Milan doesn't depend on tourism unlike Rome. Milan has a way better location anyway in Central Europe. Rome has 3 million people (nothing like Milan/Paris/London/Amsterdam or even Frankfurt and Copenhagen) and they're all much poorer. Rome is not in a good spot. Milan has superior infrastructure and way more O/D traffic.
Frankfurt has low O&D traffic. Wouldn't you say the same thing to them ? Or are you biased ?
Let's just compare stats for a second:
Milan Metro GDP : €455 billion (3rd in Europe after London and Paris, tied with Rurh) = €55.000 per capita (~7.5 million residents)
Rome Metro GDP : €150 billion = €35.000 per capita (~4.5 million residents)
Milan's airport system (MXP LIN BGY) = total 55 million passengers yearly (of which 90% are O/D)
Rome airport system (FCO CIA) = total 45 million passengers yearly (of which 60% are O/D so not strong at all because southern italians are poor and can't travel unlike the Central European Northern Italians).
Milan has the one of the strongest O/D in Europe, far better than ZRH, HEL, MUC, FCO, and FRA. On par with AMS.
Rome has nothing besides tourism. Milan's a leader in manufacturing, pharma, defence, healthcare, luxury, fashion, finance. And it's also the 9th most visited city in Europe and the 16th in the world so that just adds to it.
Milan has equivalent traffic to Paris.
Stop underrating it and stop talking about it if you know nothing. Stick to America or wherever you're from, Felix. If you think Milan is only fashion and finance... think again. Ignorant. Cry more. Lombardy should be independent and have its own SkyTeam flag carrier.
wouldn't surprise me much to see UA add IAH-FCO for a few years. Why give away their local IAH traffic that currently connects to a non-JV member where UA gets little benefit of their passengers flying ITA.
ITA may be joining Star but that doesn't mean UA gets much benefit until ITA is in the JV and UA isn't short on widebodies....
Take the win, Max. Tim's busy below pretending not to care about losing a partner in Europe.
you yourself, 1990, noted that there are alliance partner SWAPS going on in Europe so hard to see how it is a win when the US carriers including UA have a larger share of flights from the US to Italy than to Scandinavia. It makes far less sense to share a market where you are already larger than your potential alliance partner even before considering geography which favors SK's hubs to increase penetration of central...
you yourself, 1990, noted that there are alliance partner SWAPS going on in Europe so hard to see how it is a win when the US carriers including UA have a larger share of flights from the US to Italy than to Scandinavia. It makes far less sense to share a market where you are already larger than your potential alliance partner even before considering geography which favors SK's hubs to increase penetration of central Europe, AKA Star's hubs.
Max did get it right that UA would like to not have a non-JV partner route come into a UA hub but it will matter much less once/if there is a JV - but this route might serve the basis for determining how the JV calculations are done.
and despite what many believe, UA is not flush in widebodies. They have multiple 777s grounded for engine engines and they are expected to have to start retiring 767s and 777s, something that DL has been doing for 5 years. Even if fuel costs are low, maintenance on older aircraft gets more and more expensive and parts availability can make or break the decision to keep airplanes in service. UA will simply have to retire a larger share of its new deliveries than AA or DL, both of which have retired widebodies during and since the pandemic, something UA has not done.
Tim, if I can stir the pot between you and Max, it's a good day for me. Seriously, some of your two's back-and-forths are my favorites. Keep it going, fellas. It's Coke vs. Pepsi with you guys.
As for discussions on who's 'flush in widebodies,' man, just the way you worded that got me excited. Globally, let's go with EK as 'flush-ist' with widebodies. Bah!
except one of us is all in on Coke, the other could care less so long as Coke dude uses facts and doesn't make sh*t up
Get a life and a job, 1990.
God knows how you make a living spending your entire day commenting on dual citizenship articles
amen, brother
"Get a life and a job, 1990"
or anything else that he can whip into a political statement.
I presume you read CF's article about UA's 777 PW engine engines which is exactly in line w/ what I said would be the case w/ older aircraft. UA simply is not going to use large percentages of its widebody deliveries for growth no matter how much anyone believes even before factoring in...
amen, brother
"Get a life and a job, 1990"
or anything else that he can whip into a political statement.
I presume you read CF's article about UA's 777 PW engine engines which is exactly in line w/ what I said would be the case w/ older aircraft. UA simply is not going to use large percentages of its widebody deliveries for growth no matter how much anyone believes even before factoring in that its RASM performance in the 3rd quarter was horrific and they have already signaled they are dialing back TATL growth for 2026.
ITA is not in the JV so is not bound by what UA wants or does.
I also remembering someone talking about fleet age because UA wasn't retiring aircraft. Heads you win tails they lose? Nice try though.
UA hasn't announced retirement of widebodies; when they start doing so, then we will be able to calculate the change in their fleet age.
Like when you were dismissing the fleet age difference between AA & DL while characterizing a smaller difference with UA as critical. Heads you win, tails they lose? Too funny.
UA's WIDEBODY fleet age and efficiency is well below AA and DL's and that is what matters; UA actually has been retiring 319s/320s so that isn't the issue.
just accept that UA has to retire widebodies in fairly large numbers over the next few years because they haven't done it for 5 years and we will be on the same point.
reality is not competitive as much as you want to try to make it that way
Right, if only UA had retired more wide body aircraft like DL & AA did during Covid? UFB.
UA: 1,060 aircraft, (229 WB), 186 WB/482 NB on order (15.5 average fleet age)
DA: 992 aircraft, (178 WB), 26 WB/237 NB on order (14.9 average fleet age)
AA: 1,002 aircraft, (133 WB), 22 WB/278 NB on order (14.1 average fleet age)
Any award space on this flight?
you need only look at AA's DFW-FCO flight to see why ITA is starting this flight. Even though Texas is an otherwise poor choice for TATL and TPAC flights if that is the only flight for a carrier, the two Texas hubs are part of a network of routes for foreign carriers - and for AA and UA. AA has shown the world what a route like DFW-FCO can do even when flown in the...
you need only look at AA's DFW-FCO flight to see why ITA is starting this flight. Even though Texas is an otherwise poor choice for TATL and TPAC flights if that is the only flight for a carrier, the two Texas hubs are part of a network of routes for foreign carriers - and for AA and UA. AA has shown the world what a route like DFW-FCO can do even when flown in the winter.
and there is something about ITA building out its network now before joining the JV; UA and ITA are competitors right now so all UA can do is decide how it wants to help ITA feed its flight. When a JV is put in place, UA then has a voice in the routes its JV partners operate; now is the time for ITA to expand its network.
and IAH as a domestic hub is less than half the size of AA at DFW. IAH has a much higher percentage of flights to Latin America (because UA's domestic operation is smaller)
Well, Tim, time for Delta to make Gary Leff's day and start operating a nonstop on a339 or a359 from AUS-FCO. Think of all the delicious cacio e pepe he could be enjoying and all the bbq some Italians who route the other way could be 'trying' to enjoy. (I realize none of that is happening.)
Why would IAH be a bad choice for transatlantic flights? Houston is the fourth largest city in the US and one or if not the most diverse in the country
note what I said. Texas and any other hub in the center of the US does not make a very good gateway for either TATL or TPAC routes because there are coastal hubs that not only typically have larger local markets to destinations in Europe and Asia but also can connect to much more of the country.
That is why DL and UA both have relatively small TATL and TPAC hubs at their hubs...
note what I said. Texas and any other hub in the center of the US does not make a very good gateway for either TATL or TPAC routes because there are coastal hubs that not only typically have larger local markets to destinations in Europe and Asia but also can connect to much more of the country.
That is why DL and UA both have relatively small TATL and TPAC hubs at their hubs in the center of the country.
AA struggles on the coasts and so has built DFW as its most global hub; compare the size of AA's TATL network at DFW to UA's at IAH and it is clear that UA understands that principle.
AS PART OF A MULTI-GATEWAY strategy, IAH and DFW work because of the large domestic feed operations that exist there.
and the Italian population in Houston is far smaller than from other countries; IAH-FCO will work because of the feed from UA - JV or not - and ITA's ability to connect beyond FCO.
"AA struggles on the coasts and so has built DFW as its most global hub; compare the size of AA's TATL network at DFW to UA's at IAH and it is clear that UA understands that principle."
You're an idiot. Grab a map. AA, in particular, can connect millions via DFW and due to its sheer immense size and being the 4th largest MSA in the US. UA could and does as well via IAH...
"AA struggles on the coasts and so has built DFW as its most global hub; compare the size of AA's TATL network at DFW to UA's at IAH and it is clear that UA understands that principle."
You're an idiot. Grab a map. AA, in particular, can connect millions via DFW and due to its sheer immense size and being the 4th largest MSA in the US. UA could and does as well via IAH but IAH is too far south vs DFW to carry the same connecting traffic at the same cost and IAH doesn't have the airport infrastructure for UA to cheaply grow to DFW's size so UA chooses to connect similar loads as DFW via ORD.
And AA has 5 hubs on the east coast to include three successful TATL ones (DCA obviously is north america only while MIA isn't in the right geographic place to do much more than O&D from MIA to Europe. European traffic to MIA is usually carried by European carriers as is pretty normal on both sides of the Atlantic)
Long-term, AA has the most gates at LAX once construction is done. Not to mention the best partners, by far, at LAX. OneWorld has hubs at every major city on the West Coast.
Houston is too far south? Compared to DFW, it’s 68 miles farther to Rome, 76 miles farther to Paris, and 89 miles farther to Frankfurt. True, connecting there from many points in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas might require flying an extra 20 minutes. But it’s worth it to avoid the DFW complex.
'Italian population is far small', your assumption is completely wrong. France is the most visited country, and not by the French. So, a flight to Spain or Italy from Texas does not count on Italian or Spaniards living in Texas visiting their home country, what a silly argument. Spain is the second most visited country in the world and needs a flight from IAH, not because of Spaniards living in Houston
> IAH as a domestic hub is less than half the size of AA at DFW. IAH has a much higher percentage of flights to Latin America (because UA's domestic operation is smaller)
The traffic that AA pumps thru DFW (~900 flights/day), UA splits between DEN and IAH (~450 flights/day each). Before the UA merger, Continental had ~700 flights a day from IAH, but of course a lot of that traffic flow made more sense over DEN and ORD after the merger.
A great addition for Houston for sure (and for ITA), but one wonders why UA has not started its own IAH-FCO seasonal by now. While UA hasn't really expanded IAH all that much, it hasn't cut back there either. It's still a very large hub and a major connector for Central and South America not to mention US domestic. UA has enough wide bodies to add pretty much anything it wants. FCO, BCN, MAD and even CDG, which has not run in years, all seem like no brainers.
One of the main reasons that UA doesnt do more trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights from IAH is because its at a geographical disadvantage compared to its other hubs. The majority of connections, work just as well or better via UA's other hubs if someone is going to Europe or Asia. I attended a UA conference in Chicago last month for their top clients and UA stated this directly when someone asked about IAH-CDG and IAH-MAD.
UA has two top international gateways in EWR and SFO and IAH has the least connection opportunities to Europe of any of its other hubs with the exception of LAX. UA has plenty of routes they want to serve, but need even more aircraft. They have been extending FCO service to almost year round from hubs other than EWR as they have received more lift. Having ITA fill in until UA receives more 787s adds the route to the Star network in the interim.
IAH does pretty well for itself, I don't think it's particularly neglected. It manages to even have AKL and SYD, beyond the vanilla Tokyo route for TPAC.
I imagine that it will get more flights once the IAH expansion is complete next year. UA has a relatively balanced hub structure, I don't think IAH is too behind the curve in terms of any flights or capacity.
I think it's smart given how much feed traffic they will get from other US airports to Houston via United, but United also uses IAH as their Latin America hub, so even Italian diaspora within Central and South America will have a new connecting option.
No one sane travels from Europe to Latin America via the US due to the extremely inconvenient transfer process at the US airport (and that was before the recently introduced lottery where you can win few weeks in a CBP concentration camp). Most people opt for MEX, YYZ or to a lesser extent PTY.
Samo gets it.
Actually you got it all wrong. A lot of people go from Latin America via the US. Iberia flights DFW-MAD is mostly people from Northern Mexico
TX doesn't get it, at all. Dallas is like a 9 hour drive to Mexico.
TX doesn't get TLAT via TX, but NYC 1990 does? Got it.
Nobody will connect through FCO.
MXP/CDG/LHR/AMS/FRA are way better
Woah, Star Alliance? @Tim Dunn, what happened? Seems like a loss to Delta/SkyTeam. Uh oh.
LOL. Alitalia, and then ITA Airways, were junior partners in Sky Team and that was always a point of contention. The plan all along with the LH take over was to bring ITA into Star Alliance.
As to DL. well, there was a lot of code sharing back in the Sky Team period with AZ, but it was focused around FCO. As ITA withdrew from Sky Team, DL has been ramping up Italy, just like everyone else.
just like what happened w/ SK in Star.
the difference is that FCO is not geographically near as well suited for connections as Scandinavia is and Italy is a massive local market for US carriers.
There is little reason to share the market with a foreign carrier if you can carry it on your own metal; US carriers command a high percentage of traffic between the US and Italy
Which is quite interesting, Tim. The shuffle going on over in Europe these days... ITA to SA; SK to SkyTeam, etc. Anyway, I don't doubt Italy will remain a top destination for US leisure travel, regardless of airline alliances or carriers. Personally, I've enjoyed La Compagnie to MXP for their relatively affordable business class nonstop from EWR. From there, you can get to most of Europe via train (fine, maybe a quick flight needed for Sardinia, Sicily, or Malta).
the real story is that ITA is working hard - and probably will succeed - at making FCO a true year round hub instead of just a summer seasonal huge operation which is shared w/ foreign carriers, esp. from the US. Italy is a good hub for connecting TATL traffic beyond Europe - Africa, the Middle East and S. Asia - and ITA is trying to grow in those areas which makes sense.
Milan...
the real story is that ITA is working hard - and probably will succeed - at making FCO a true year round hub instead of just a summer seasonal huge operation which is shared w/ foreign carriers, esp. from the US. Italy is a good hub for connecting TATL traffic beyond Europe - Africa, the Middle East and S. Asia - and ITA is trying to grow in those areas which makes sense.
Milan is the loser as Italy's longhaul flights increasingly get concentrated at FCO but there is more than enough longhaul air service to MXP with intra-Europe flights mostly from LIN.
Occasionally, I do see itineraries from NYC to Asia via FCO on ITA, but I've never considered it. I'd rather fly nonstop or route through ME on QR or EK. Learned the hard way that EU261 doesn't save you if single-itinerary from USA to non-EU, even if connecting in EU.
Milan is not losing though. Milan is independent from the rest of Italy. LIN will be limited by law soon and most carriers are ramping up MXP which is always the more attractive market, on par with the big 3, to long haul international carriers. EK, EY, BR, WY, AA, DL, UA all have more frequencies, better/larger aircraft, more premium capacity and volume on Milan than Rome.
The only thing FCO has is a hub...
Milan is not losing though. Milan is independent from the rest of Italy. LIN will be limited by law soon and most carriers are ramping up MXP which is always the more attractive market, on par with the big 3, to long haul international carriers. EK, EY, BR, WY, AA, DL, UA all have more frequencies, better/larger aircraft, more premium capacity and volume on Milan than Rome.
The only thing FCO has is a hub carrier but it's weak and nothing can change its inferior geography compared to MXP.
ITA will not succeed as it will only be a Lufthansa Group LATAM feeder. Milan should be the hub.
DZ, I enjoyed your use of 'inferior geography' to describe cities. Would be like saying someone has 'inferior genes' or something. Like, who/what has better whatever is open to interpretation. FCO and MXP are each 20-30 miles from their respective cities (yawn). FCO is on low-lying, flat coastal land, so, better for expansion, unless the seas rise too fast. MXP is strategic for access to the Alps and Venice, too (though, you'd need to take...
DZ, I enjoyed your use of 'inferior geography' to describe cities. Would be like saying someone has 'inferior genes' or something. Like, who/what has better whatever is open to interpretation. FCO and MXP are each 20-30 miles from their respective cities (yawn). FCO is on low-lying, flat coastal land, so, better for expansion, unless the seas rise too fast. MXP is strategic for access to the Alps and Venice, too (though, you'd need to take Trenitalia or drive there, because no flights between Milan and Venice); however, the winter fog and occasional flooding at MXP are an issue (they've been upgrading their drainage system at least).
Flooding and fog are not an issue. Milan lies on flat land. That's literally what it's called. Pianura = PLATEAU.
And yeah, it's up North and has access to other Central European hubs. It's closer to Paris and Munich than Rome/Naples/Barcelona.
Milan has superior economy and everything, not just geography.
Far away from Rome.
Rome doesn't have good geography and humidity is a problem there.
Yeah, MXP is far superior to FCO.
When AZ first joined SkyTeam and had the Milan hub, they weren't junior partners at all.
This is fantastic news.
No, nobody wants to go through Rome.
Everybody wants to go TO Rome. That's what flights to Rome are about.
Correct
Stfu lebron. You know nothing. Milan is the Capital
Building a HUB means having transfer traffic.
TOURISM is a POOR industry.
Milan's the best city for a hub.
Deal with it
DZ, unless this is an international sequel to Debbie Does Dallas. But, for alliteration, we can do 'Ronald Rams Rome' or something like that. Got any better ideas?
Nobody cares about Rome
I think you're just talking about yourself, fine. Don't go through Rome, we don't care
I'm talking about anyone with a brain.
Normal people know Milan is better and building a hub is all about location.