Royal Air Maroc is planning to launch flights to a new destination in the United States, which will also have major implications for that airport, in terms of achieving a fairly rare milestone. While I first covered the carrier’s intent to launch this route a couple of weeks ago, it’s now official, and flights are on sale.
In this post:
Royal Air Maroc will fly Boeing 787s to Los Angeles
As of June 7, 2026, Royal Air Maroc plans to launch 3x weekly flights between Casablanca (CMN) and Los Angeles (LAX). The oneworld airline plans to operate the service with the following schedule:
AT250 Casablanca to Los Angeles departing 4:00AM arriving 8:20AM
AT251 Los Angeles to Casablanca departing 10:20AM arriving 5:25AM (+1 day)
The 5,990-mile flight will operate on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Fridays, and is blocked at 12hr20min westbound and 11hr5min eastbound.
Royal Air Maroc will use a Boeing 787-8 for the route, featuring 274 seats. This includes 18 business class seats and 256 economy class seats. These planes have very strange paired “top/bottom” seats, which I’m not a huge fan of.
As of now the flight is bookable through the end of the IATA summer season (late October 2026), so it remains to be seen if this is a seasonal service, or if the airline has simply not scheduled it out further than that yet. I imagine the timing of this route starting is no coincidence, and is intended to overlap with the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
This route shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, since the airline recently requested permission with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to launch this service.
Royal Air Maroc’s destinations in the United States currently include Miami (MIA), New York (JFK), and Washington (IAD). One certainly wonders what this service will come at the expense of, given Royal Air Maroc’s small long haul fleet. The airline has just five 787-8s and six 787-9s. There has been a lot of talk about the airline ordering more aircraft, but presumably those wouldn’t be delivered in time for this route to launch.
LAX will once again be part of the six continent club!
There aren’t many airports in the world with nonstop, regularly scheduled passenger service to all six continents, given the obvious geographical challenge of that. Once this route launches, LAX will finally once again join that club, as this will connect the airport to Africa.
For what it’s worth, EgyptAir also plans to launch LAX flights next year, so the airport could go from zero to two Africa routes over a very short period.
What’s my take on Royal Air Maroc’s upside with launching this route? To Royal Air Maroc’s credit, the airline has a very low cost structure, given that labor costs in Morocco are substantially lower than we have at US airlines.
Los Angeles to Morocco isn’t necessarily a huge market, but when you add up all the potential one-stop Africa city pairs, it shouldn’t be too tough to make this service work. Given Morocco’s geography, connecting via Casablanca could even be somewhat efficient for some destinations in Europe.
So anyway, this isn’t some huge market, but when you combine the carrier’s low cost structure with the number of one-stop destinations, I’m sure this route would do fine. Then again, is there really much incremental revenue for the extra 2,000 miles of flying compared to service from the East Coast?
Bottom line
As of June 2026, Royal Air Maroc will launch regularly scheduled flights between Casablanca and Los Angeles, using Boeing 787s. We’ve known the airline has been wanting to add this service, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to see flights put on sale. For LAX, this also means the airport will once again offer flights to all six continents with regularly scheduled air service.
What do you make of Royal Air Maroc launching LAX flights?
Flight times for this service appear to be downright hostile…4.00 am departure from CMN which arrives at 8.20 am. 5.25 am arrival from the eastbound flight. Better have a home to go to because hotel check-ins would be tough.
As someone based at LAX, there is always incremental value to me for an airline that only otherwise has east coast hubs for transatlantic flights. I'm never going to position 5-6 hours for another 6 hour flight. I'll always connect directly through Europe instead. This makes connecting through North Africa a viable option for once!
I’m currently standing in the lounge in CMN. There is no seating at all. Not a premium experience.
Somewhat interesting that they chose LAX versus DFW or ORD among the AA hubs, since it will be less efficient connecting onwards across the continent to the non-West Coast host cities. Although not "wrong" given that LA, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver are all hosting games.
Ben, I also don't think it would be surprising to see more OneWorld carriers add service to various AA hubs or Canada given that Qatar Airways has a major...
Somewhat interesting that they chose LAX versus DFW or ORD among the AA hubs, since it will be less efficient connecting onwards across the continent to the non-West Coast host cities. Although not "wrong" given that LA, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver are all hosting games.
Ben, I also don't think it would be surprising to see more OneWorld carriers add service to various AA hubs or Canada given that Qatar Airways has a major sponsorship deal for the World Cup and American Airlines has signed a deal with Qatar to sub-license some of those same sponsorship/marketing rights as well.
front will be filled with families looking to sit away from instagram influencers - back will be filled by instagram influencers.
it’ll fill
DFW would be nice - and would also join the Six Continent Club. But it would be a trunk route rather than a prestige route, built solely for feed on both ends.
The RAM 787-9 is great - seats are comfortable with a wide footwell, and unlike any EU carrier, they have individual air nozzles. I've never been more comfortable (temperature wise) on an aircraft than I have on CMN-JFK. The food is good too.
I would gladly fly this over another Euro or US carrier, however, not in the 787-8 for 11+ hours. The flight times are awful as well.
There is an attractiveness to the route. But, the business class seat is a deal-breaker for some. And, of course, just try to find award inventory.
Who the hell wants to even go to that dump? And I don't mean Casablanca.
So, we were the s-hole country, all along, it seems. Huh.
hE wAs RiGhT aBoUt EvErYtHiNg *burp*
Disgusting, disgruntled …. You ask …. “Who the hell wants to even go to that dump? And I don't mean Casablanca”.
The answer is of course …. educated, cultured travellers who are unbiased, appreciate history, Islamic art and possess a sense of adventure.
Quite something which too few who contaminate these comments pages will ever appreciate.
What a 'based' take on that North African country, AeroB13a, however, Disgruntled was making a joke about LA, not Morocco.
Service was very friendly and food good on a recent flight with them. There were a few funny things like the menu saying chicken and it was actually a beef dish, etc., but wifi worked + food was tasty + you could tell crew wanted to do a good job and were very kind.
However, CMN airport, while clean and airy, didn't have a single working shower despite multiple lounges listing showers as an...
Service was very friendly and food good on a recent flight with them. There were a few funny things like the menu saying chicken and it was actually a beef dish, etc., but wifi worked + food was tasty + you could tell crew wanted to do a good job and were very kind.
However, CMN airport, while clean and airy, didn't have a single working shower despite multiple lounges listing showers as an amenity. Lounges in general were rough. It was sad because I actually was quite happy with how the journey was prior to that. However, sweaty and tired after a long international flight, having a single shower in the whole airport is necessary. The RAM lounge had I think a single shower (?) but the (very friendly!) staff said it was not working.
RAM will take 2 additional 787 on lease in 2026, so no cuts to other routes ;)
to the person JD ... try adding SYD to your list; from there you can fly to South America, North America, Africa, Asia, Europe and around Australia itself. That counts as 6.
To the person crosscourt ... WRONG!
I thought the only direct flight to Europe from SYD was one stop at Perth.
Then @John, you'd be WRONG. But I do commend you for you being aware that Australian airports and airlines DO operate some incredibly variable and exciting options in the global marketplace.
My correction is - Direct (and non-stop) flights from PER on QF, include PER-LHR, PER-CDG and PER-LHR. Each of these destinations are in Europe, last time I looked :-)
Also VirginFlyer, many thanks for your excellent and comprehensively accurate summation of the facts.
Let's...
Then @John, you'd be WRONG. But I do commend you for you being aware that Australian airports and airlines DO operate some incredibly variable and exciting options in the global marketplace.
My correction is - Direct (and non-stop) flights from PER on QF, include PER-LHR, PER-CDG and PER-LHR. Each of these destinations are in Europe, last time I looked :-)
Also VirginFlyer, many thanks for your excellent and comprehensively accurate summation of the facts.
Let's face some additional real facts here - rather than some uninformed opinions.
First, it is simply NOT currently possible to fly commercial routes such as SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR NON-STOP on ANY scheduled carrier / airline or aircraft. Despite quoting "SYD-JFK (via AKL)" in my prior post, some wish to impose their own addition of [non-stop] to this discussion, despite it being currently impossible.
That will change when QF introduces its fleet of A350-1000ULR aircraft. A small number of airlines are now flying the A350-1000 but QF has ordered the -1000ULR version fitted with an additional tank.
QF's order with Airbus ensures that it will be the first customer to order / receive this model, which will allow non-stop operations from SYD/MEL to LHR, JFK and numerous points globally that are simply not achievable in 2025-6. They have 12 of these on order - and also 12 of the regular A350-1000's (without the additional auxiliary tank).
Second, this concept of the "Six Continents Club" is clearly NOT owned or managed by *anyone* in the aviation community. It is a "community-construct" from the community of bloggers and airports - which has no firm definition or ownership and where the concept of non-stop vs direct (one-stop for fuel but with a continuous single flight number) is somewhat controversial.
Clearly, when discussing flights between the two furtherest apart continents / regions / locales, absolute non-stop flights are currently impossible. That will inevitably change within the near future. Get ready for it, 'cos the 'construct' is changing - and you'll have one less thing to be outraged against, bitch or complain about.
And just as QF did when it became the only passenger airline to order the beloved B747-400ER (now retired), it continues to be a global leader in the concept of ULH flight length.
Just flew Royal Air Maroc 787 from CMN to JFK and the service was the worst we've enountered in international business class. I can't imagine being stuck on RAM for 12 hours. Seats were uncomfortable and the lavs were dirty. Food was inedible. We had flown CLT to CMN a few weeks earlier on Iberia and, while not great, was much better than RAM.
No thanks. Flew JFK to Casablanca on RAM and it was by far the most uncomfortable business class seat I've ever flown. Might have been better once upon a time but the seats are old, not terribly well maintained and the cushion is paper thin. More like Royal Air Feels Like A Rock.
Great news considering I'm planning a trip to Morocco at the end of 2026!
The other most convenient options from LAX were to connect through CDG, MAD, or LHR. Not bad, but a nonstop really saves time from the west coast.
What the hell would I want to go to a place like that for? Snakes just scare the hell out of me. I'm sort of scared about going there, but the wife is really nervous. I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me
Great, a new racist in the ranks.
Take a look at Morocco, it looks like a flea market. It's the largest country in the area, but it looks like hell. There's a big store that hangs jeans and ladies' clothes outside, and that's bullshit.
She's taking the piss
Sorry but why does a flight NEED to be non-stop to be considered ''connected''?
Beijing is connected to South America by way of its Beijing-Madrid-Sao Paulo route.
Shanghai is connected to South America by way of its Shanghai-Auckland-Buenos Aires route.
Heathrow is connected to Oceania by way of its Heathrow-Singapore-Sydney route (yes, I'm aware non-stop to Perth exists).
All involve no change of plane and same flight number. Bore off with the NEED...
Sorry but why does a flight NEED to be non-stop to be considered ''connected''?
Beijing is connected to South America by way of its Beijing-Madrid-Sao Paulo route.
Shanghai is connected to South America by way of its Shanghai-Auckland-Buenos Aires route.
Heathrow is connected to Oceania by way of its Heathrow-Singapore-Sydney route (yes, I'm aware non-stop to Perth exists).
All involve no change of plane and same flight number. Bore off with the NEED to be non-stop, the above are still DIRECT flights.
Nobody says it NEEDS to be, but it’s noteworthy.
Changed your stance, Timtamtrack ??
Your (below) comment to my original post would seem to indicate so.
Why are you mad over this lol
I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Sorry, New Zealand is not part of the continent of Australia. In fact, some are arguing that NZ is part of its own continent, one that is mostly underwater.
Sorry, but it’s not quite as clear-cut as that. Yes, geologically Australia and New Zealand are distinct, and there is a large, mostly-submerged landmass (which has been given the name Zealandia) which only sits above sea level in two places (New Zealand and New Caledonia). However there are also definitions of continent that are more of a cultural construct. In this sense, the term is used interchangeably with a region. So it is not uncommon...
Sorry, but it’s not quite as clear-cut as that. Yes, geologically Australia and New Zealand are distinct, and there is a large, mostly-submerged landmass (which has been given the name Zealandia) which only sits above sea level in two places (New Zealand and New Caledonia). However there are also definitions of continent that are more of a cultural construct. In this sense, the term is used interchangeably with a region. So it is not uncommon to refer to a “continent” of Australasia or Oceania, which not only includes Australia, New Guinea, and New Zealand, but also the islands of the Pacific.
But you can get even less clear cut still. For instance, you are probably familiar with a seven-continent model (Antarctica, Africa, Asia, Australia/Australasia/Oceania, Europe, North America, South America). But in a noteworthy number of places North and South America are considered one continent, America, giving a six-continent model. This is the model used by the United Nations for the purpose of statistics. Meanwhile, go to Russia, and you will find a six-continent model, but this time with Asia and Europe combined. And going be to the geological perspective, the combined Eurasia is what actually meets the accepted definition of a continent, so with the addition of Zealandia it gives us 7 continents again: Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, South America, Zealandia.
From the perspective of considering how well-connected an airport is to different parts of the world (which is really what the concept of the six-continent club is), I would argue that considering Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and the surrounding Pacific islands as part of one unit (weather it’s a “continent” or a “geographic region”, and whether it’s named Australia, Australasia, or Oceania) makes sense. You could even begin the break larger continents out more: for instance Asia is so large and diverse that an airport being connected to East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia is probably more noteworthy than one which is only connected to some of those areas.
V/F
New Zealand may think Australia and Australians are annoying, but there is zero chance anyone sensible would consider NZ being part of its own continent. Not even close.
we found the ACKCHYUALLY guy!
Very interesting, I didn't know much about CMN, just looked it up on Wikipedia, turns out Royal Air Maroc is basically going everywhere in western and central Africa from there.
Casablanca is boring. Dirty industrial city. It's fine for a jumping off point into more interesting cities like Marrakesh.
Egyptair’s announcement a few weeks actually made LAX a member of the 6 continent club first. Flight starts first too, May 2026.
Ben, Simply Flying is reporting LAX and Boston
Both JFK & YUL see up to 2x daily so I bet one of those will be cut, probably the daytime to/from YUL
RAM is also unique in offering those two daytime TATL flights, more than any other airline except BA from BOS/JFK
They don't need to cancel my route to launch this.
They recently took delivery of new B787-9 that was originally destined for WestJet
What an exciting route! The only other US airport part of the 6 continent club is JFK. ORD used to be but NZ pulled out. The others in the world are CDG, LHR, DXB, DOH & JNB so it really is a fairly rare club.
Really I thought United ran IAH-Lagos?
Also ORD has (had?) AKL & has an Ethiopian flight
The IAH-LOS has been canceled if memory serves me right, only IAD-LOS running now
FCO no? QF serves Perth
FCO isn’t in USA, otherwise CDG, LHR, JNB, DXB & a couple others all qualify
Atlanta, Newark, JFK, Dulles, ORD.
EWR doesn’t have nonstop service to Australia/Oceania nor does IAD. ORD has nonstop to Africa but again, they just lost NZ. So they’re back to five.
IST too. TK serves Australia (with a tech stop though_
@JD
You have forgotten SYD - and QF specifically. Some QF currently served routes, for example, include:
SYD-North America (YVR, HNL, SFO, LAX, DFW all non-stop and JFK
JFK via AKL)
SYD-South America (SCL) non-stop
SYD-Africa (JNB) non-stop
SYD-EUROPE (LHR via SIN),
SYD-ASIA (SIN, KUL, HKG, HND, NRT, MNL, BKK, CGK, DPS all non-stop)
BOM & DEL - seasonal non-stop)
SYD-OCEANIA (POM, NAN, SUV, AKL, CHC, WLG, ZQN
@JD
You have forgotten SYD - and QF specifically. Some QF currently served routes, for example, include:
SYD-North America (YVR, HNL, SFO, LAX, DFW all non-stop and JFK
JFK via AKL)
SYD-South America (SCL) non-stop
SYD-Africa (JNB) non-stop
SYD-EUROPE (LHR via SIN),
SYD-ASIA (SIN, KUL, HKG, HND, NRT, MNL, BKK, CGK, DPS all non-stop)
BOM & DEL - seasonal non-stop)
SYD-OCEANIA (POM, NAN, SUV, AKL, CHC, WLG, ZQN
SYD-AUSTRALIA (all states and major / most minor domestic airports)
SYD-ANTARCTICA (QF regularly flies publicly-available sight-seeing charters specifically to Antarctica, during late Dec / early Jan each year, ergo seasonal). These flights do NOT land and take approx. 10 hours from dep to arr/return. In some years past, this has also operated from MEL as well.
This list is not exhaustive, or intended to be. It simply serves to show that SYD - without any doubt whatsoever - is ALSO a 6 continent club member. It also does NOT include the international carriers flying into SYD, which totals in excess of 60+ international carriers.
I would also expect LHR / British Airways to be on this list, as well.
@kimshep, not disputing what you say but the point of the article is nonstop service to six continents, and Europe is not served nonstop from SYD. Loads of cities have one stop service.
Rome FCO does have nonstop to all six continents, Qantas flies to Perth year long from there. So the club is CDG, LHR, FCO, DXB, DOH, JFK and LAX. Istanbul isn’t nonstop as TK has a technical stop in Malaysia.
I think the intent is clearly that it has to be non-stop routes that land on the continent, therefore SYD-Europe/Antarctica doesn't make the cut.
However, QF and Perth are the only reason LHR, CDG and seasonally FCO make the cut.
you forgot IST