rdc1000Yet, despite all the doom and gloom in the US airline industry, you still can’t connect in the proper sense of the word. US airlines seem to be collectively missing a trick.
Why?
I am a bit confused here? The US majors have based their entire strategies on hubs. There is an long standing joke in the US that “you have to connect in Atlanta to get to heaven”, referring to the mega hub of Delta there, with over 100 million passengers, the airport is rather reliant upun connecting traffic (given that Atlanta city has a population of around 3 million people). The main emphasis of these hubs in the US is still domestic to domestic, but there are significant (and increasing) amounts of International to Domestic (and vice versa) traffic. I recently read that Delta’s international routes made up about 24% of it’s network in 2005, today, their shifted emphasis to higher yielding international traffic, has led to that figure being 41%.
If you mean Europe to Australasia via the US then yes, you’re right, they’re not as succesful, but that is not the shortest route to Oz.
rdc1000Glasgow next ?
Quite probably, they have a distinct preference for EDI staying in the family!
I think it’s very interesting that they’ve put LGW on the market now. The process is going to take some time as they haven’t yet appointed sales advisors, but even so, it’s not the best time to be bringing an Airport to the market! I think this is a reflection of Ferrovial and BAA’s own financial position. Bringing LGW to the market now will exclude some potential purchasers who cannot get their hands on money readily under the current climate. Furthermore, for those that can secure finance, it will be at a rate high enough to make them cautious over how much they will pay, especially with LIBOR rates having increased again.
So basically, bringing the Airport to the market now isn’t necessarily going to generate the best price. Furthermore, the operator will not be forced to sell any airports until all the appeals regarding the break up have been heard and considered, so this is not a 100% necessity at the moment. However, given the downgrades in BAA’s own credit rating, and the fact that they have struggled to refinance would suggest to me that this is a safety valve on BAA’s financial position.
My guess is that it will be a serious airport operator that will buy LGW. LCY and LBA both went to investment groups (one of which now has the US Govt. as a shareholder!!!), who’s typical intention for major infrastructure is to leverage as much out of them as possible in terms of finance/debt, and seek quick gains in value through development and growth, and get out within 5 years. But LGW is a cumbersome beast that has no short term growth prospects, and will therefore appeal to a buyer investing over a longer period of time. Essentially the Airport will need a 2nd Runway, which is not likely to occur until at least 2019 due to planning commitments, to release additional capacity and seek grwoth beyond the nominal growth in average load factors and aircraft sizes.
rdc1000Well, to start with, it’s not a merger. The airlines are not taking an equity stake in each other, let alone fully merging.
They are seeking the right to enhance and expand their level of co-operation, with what is known as Anti-Trust Immunity. This would allow them to codeshare on each others services from London Heathrow (they have been doing it from regional airports for a number of years), set joint fares, and share the profits between them as they see fit. This would be equivelant to the level of co-operation already permitted between a number of European/US carriers, most notably KLM/Northwest, who have had Anti-Trust immunity for many years, since the Netherlands signed an Open-Skies agreement with the US. Lufthansa/United, and Air France/Delta also have anti-trust immunity, so can co-operate fully.
Peronally, despite the market dominance of the two carriers at LHR, and the dominance of LHR in the US-Europe air transport market, I think it is about time these two airlines were permitted to work together properly, otherwise the precedents set in approving the other alliances are a mockery! You can’t have it one way, and not the other! I think there will need to be some small level of slot surrender at LHR (previously the airlines considered the number of slots they had to give up to be too many), but given that all of the big US carriers are now into LHR then this shouldn’t be such a sticking point as before.
rdc1000So… wherever the airlines are back at, it is not where they were in 1970-s before they invented business class, because then they had 42” and less in their highest class.
That is why the paragraph you have quoted from does not state anything about the 1970s!
rdc1000Oh…and now news on Futura itself..
Futura temporarily halts flights, plans creditor protection
London (08Sep08, 14:31 GMT, 103 words)Spanish carrier Futura International Airways has suspended operations for 24 hours today but is intending to resume services.
In a statement the Spanish ministry of public works says the carrier will seek protection from creditors both for itself and subsidiary Flyant.
The ministry says the company must submit a business plan, information about its financial position, and a plan guaranteeing safety of operations by 12 September.
Futura International Airways is based in Palma de Mallorca and has a fleet of around 20 Boeing 737s from several lessors.
Its Irish subsidiary, Futura Gael, has already had its air operator’s certificate withdrawn by local authorities.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
rdc1000And surely saying it’s “ludicrous” but then proceeding to reply is something of a contradiction? 😀 :diablo:
Paul
LOL, yes I know, I know!
rdc1000I have no idea who you’re used to flying with but I’ve flown in business plenty of times and had less than 42″ seat pitch. I’m not quite understanding your actual point here!
Paul
Paul,
You’ve been posting on here long enough to understand there is NO point to Chornedsnorkack’s posts, other than to show that he/she can use google! It’s ANOTHER one of their ridiculous questions/points. I hate myself for opening these threads as they wind me up so much, but they’re like a rash that you have to itch, so I find myself looking at them to see how ludicrous they are this time, and this one sure is ludicrous!
However, I will add a couple of points which may help answer the ‘question(s)’
The economics of flying mean that in the past there was no financially viable way to offer the service standards currently seen on long haul services. Aircraft like the 747SP didn’t deliver operating economics anywhere close to the A340-500, which would have been fine IF people had the finances to pay the fares necessary to cover the costs. The majority of premium seats are sold to businesses, and the reasons and need to travel in the 1970s/1980s were different to today. The tertiary sectors of industry, and the global nature of these were not so established, and those companies in these sectors weren’t so financially wealthy comparitive to today, nor was the business they did.
I think a more interesting point is that a significant number of airlines have dropped first class on some/all of their long haul services, and many of these have also introduced premium economy services. The irony is…their new business class cabin has the same seat pitches as First would have had in the 80’s and 90’s and their premium economy products deliver seat pitch comparable to their old business class. So perhaps the truth is, in many markets fare levels required to sustain the ‘super-first’ product are not achievable. The airlines cannot however rename their business back to first class, because they would still be compared to those airlines operating the ‘super-first’ type seats!
rdc1000Are you sure it’s not just Futura Gael…
Irish regulator withdraws Futura Gael’s AOC
Victoria Moores, London (08Sep08, 11:01 GMT, 261 words)Ireland’s aviation authority has withdrawn Dublin-based charter carrier Futura Gael’s air operator’s certificate, while Spanish parent company Futura International Airways is declining to comment on the status of its remaining carriers.
Dublin-based Futura Gael operates charter flights to the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe and Egypt. According to Flight’s ACAS database, the Irish carrier has a single Boeing 737-400 which is owned by Airplanes Group.
Futura Gael is said to have ceased trading overnight and a spokeswoman for the Irish Aviation Authority says: “Their air operator’s certificate has been withdrawn.”
A spokesman for Ireland’s economic oversight body, the Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR), says: “My understanding this morning is that [Futura Gael] has ceased trading while looking for an investor. They stopped flying at midnight.”
The spokesman says Futura Gael is not obliged to notify CAR if it ceases trading and he was unable to give a definitive confirmation of the airline’s status, but Futura Gael was “under watch” by the CAR, owing to concerns over its financial viability, and subject to regular regulatory review meetings.
A Dublin Airport Authority spokesman also says he understands that the carrier ceased trading at midnight.
A Futura International Airways spokeswoman declines to comment, saying only that a statement “regarding everything” will be released later today. The Spanish civil aviation administration could not immediately be contacted.
Palma de Mallorca-based Futura International Airways was founded in 1989 and is owned by Futura Global Aviation Holdings. Its fleet comprises 19 aircraft: 11 Boeing 737-800s, seven 737-400s and one 737-300. Flyant operates three aircraft, two Boeing 737-300SFs and a 737-400.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
rdc1000Alitalia files to enter administration
Graham Dunn, London (29Aug08, 18:16 GMT, 92 words)Cash-strapped Italian national carrier Alitalia has confirmed it is to file to enter extraodinary administration under the country’s recently amended bankruptcy protection laws.
The move was widely expected after the Italian cabinet yesterday approved changes to the country’s administration legislation covering large companies in crisis. Italy has been working on putting together a group of Italian investors which is expected to bid for the profitable part of Alitalia’s business.
In a brief statement issued following a board meeting today, the SkyTeam carrier confirms it has requested admission to the extraodinary administration procedure.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
And a bit more..
rdc1000That may be, but I’m guessing the Government would step in at some point to help save them.
Hey, don’t brand the Irish Govt with the same stamp as the Italians and Greeks!!! The truth is that there is very little the Govt could do without suffering the wrath of the EU.
HOWEVER, that said…I think we can safely assume that one quarter in the black isn’t going to lead to the end of EI. There are a number of airlines that have been loss-making for much longer, and with much bigger losses, and they’re still here, waiting to eventually come back into profit. One, two, or even three quarters isn’t a real problem, many of these airlines can loss make for years. Zoom is a different beast, not least because it wa sunderfunded and living from day to day financially, this isn’t the position that many of the incumbent carriers are in.
rdc1000I quite like the concept, though I suspect regulators may have some issues with it when they come to undertake evacuation trials.
rdc1000Well, actually they’re no further along yet than they have been on the last two occasions that they put in an application for anti-trust immunity. It is unlikely that a decision will be made by the US on this until AT LEAST the middle of next year, so untl then they will not be able to co-operate beyond the levels they already do.
rdc1000I bet it had a huge liquor locker full of vodka
Oh yes, of course, that’s why the ironing board is strapped tot he wall, they didn’t want to waste valuable cupboard space with those incidentals!!
rdc1000Haha, I love the ironing board strapped onto a wall beside one of the palatial seats! Have they not heard od cupboards?!
rdc1000Yes, I think the title of this thread is perhaps a little unrealistic. Seems like a fairly normal efficiency strategy to me, and whilst losses in the first quarter of this year at SAS were 10 times greater than last year, I do think there are plenty of airlines out there who would love their first quarter results…Alitalia included, although they have now had another ‘stay of execution’ witha €30o million ‘loan’ from the Italian government, which is just a disaster….what do they want to happen to their airline??
Sign In
