Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5608976/

Topic: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: nyswiss
Posted 2012-11-12 07:58:18 and read 2134 times.

According to Travel Inside Swiss is planning to strengthen its position with a crew basis in Geneva and a local leadership organization. From a route perspective it plans to increase seasonal flights to Malaga and Palma as well as to Olbia and Catania next summer while reducing the flights to Athens to 1 daily. It plans to further increase its network with the arrival of the C-Series

http://www.travelinside.ch/travelinside/de/index.php?we_objectID=25383

Sorry, in German only

Over the weekend, there was an interesting article about an interview with Harry Hohmeister about the renewal of parts of the long distance fleet: It seems that Swiss is looking at the 777 or 350's (no suprise) and plans to make a decision within the next 6 - 12 months

http://www.sonntagonline.ch/ressort/wirtschaft/2603/

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: jayeshrulz
Posted 2012-11-12 09:21:04 and read 2142 times.

Quoting nyswiss (Thread starter):
Over the weekend, there was an interesting article about an interview with Harry Hohmeister about the renewal of parts of the long distance fleet: It seems that Swiss is looking at the 777 or 350's (no suprise) and plans to make a decision within the next 6 - 12 months

http://www.sonntagonline.ch/ressort/...2603/

Being an all Airbus Airline now, i doubt they'll look at the 777. A350 shares commonality being an Airbus and they might be the winning candidate here.

Talking about hubs, will LX follow LH and have two hubs across their network?

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-11-12 09:51:00 and read 2141 times.

Didn't SR have a hub for a while at GVA? If my memory serves me correctly it was pulled down as it simply wasn't profitable.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Thomas_Jaeger
Posted 2012-11-12 09:55:52 and read 2139 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
Being an all Airbus Airline now, i doubt they'll look at the 777. A350 shares commonality being an Airbus and they might be the winning candidate here.

Talking about hubs, will LX follow LH and have two hubs across their network?

From everything I have heard so far, they seem fairly serious about the B777-300ER as it is available earlier and already performs really well for many carriers with comparable networks.

I think they are more targeting O&D demand in Geneva than trying to build up a real second hub.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-11-12 10:04:43 and read 2137 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):

Being an all Airbus Airline now, i doubt they'll look at the 777. A350 shares commonality being an Airbus and they might be the winning candidate here.

One could argue the blind transition to the Airbus fleet without properly evaluating aircraft led to the demise of Swissair. The A350 may be the airplane they choose, but I'd hope they do a better job of evaluating aircraft needs in terms of size of fleet and total acquired debt.

They already ordered the Cseries, so I don't think they are completely committed to Airbus exclusivity.

[Edited 2012-11-12 10:07:51]

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-12 10:17:38 and read 2142 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
One could argue the blind transition to the Airbus fleet without properly evaluating aircraft led to the demise of Swissair. The A350 may be the airplane they choose, but I'd hope they do a better job of evaluating aircraft needs in terms of size of fleet and total acquired debt.

You need to read up on the SAirgroup, it wasn't Swissair the airline that took down the group, it was all the other side non-core activities, most notably Sabena and AOM that bled money.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: OM617
Posted 2012-11-12 10:20:43 and read 2141 times.

From what I'm reading (translating), they seem to be leaning towards the 77W. It would be more economical, especially with regards to keeping fuel costs down, plus they could use aircraft with 50 more seats. Also the 777 would be available sooner than the 350 which they could not get until 2018.

The article also states they are not interested in receiving 346's from LH because the per-passenger costs are too high.

in any event, if they need to expand now, they'll need higher capacity and/or more aircraft sooner than later. So, they may need to lease some 346s, if just for a short time.

DED

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: viasa
Posted 2012-11-12 10:34:23 and read 2138 times.

I'm sure that an offer from Airbus SAS for A350s will include an interim solution of used A340-500s /-600s and new A330-300s.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: JU068
Posted 2012-11-12 10:43:52 and read 2138 times.

I hope they will consider launching flights to Belgrade. I read on an aviation portal that the airport is currently seeking an air link with Serbia.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: kl911
Posted 2012-11-12 10:56:36 and read 2139 times.

Shouldnt Swiss stick to its core business and leave Geneva and leisure routes to the LCC's? They can never compete with Easyjet and Wizzair ( Wizz will open up more and more CEE destinations from GVA. )

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-12 11:08:26 and read 2140 times.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 9):

Shouldnt Swiss stick to its core business and leave Geneva and leisure routes to the LCC's? They can never compete with Easyjet and Wizzair ( Wizz will open up more and more CEE destinations from GVA. )

Geneva is a high yielding market, in fact according to what LX said today higher yielding than ZRH on similar routes. Whilst easyJet do have many leisure routes from GVA, they also have a number of business routes that LX need to be present in.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: ZRH
Posted 2012-11-12 11:11:49 and read 2138 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
Talking about hubs, will LX follow LH and have two hubs across their network?

No hub. But rather a focus city with o/d connections. Actually LH has three hubs with FRA, MUC and ZRH (SWISS).

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-11-12 11:37:02 and read 2138 times.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 2):
Didn't SR have a hub for a while at GVA? If my memory serves me correctly it was pulled down as it simply wasn't profitable.

GVA was a hub for decades, and got killed offin the late 90s. As I recall, after their withdrawal, the only direct flights Swissair had out of GVA was London, Paris, Moscow and New York. Everything else was served via an hourly feeder route to Zurich.

I worked in Geneva at the time, and my employer (a multinational with probably 50 employees flying on any given day) which used to be very loyal to Swissair pretty much abandoned Swissair in favor of Lufthansa. If you HAD to make layovers, Frankfurt had much better connections than Zurich.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
One could argue the blind transition to the Airbus fleet without properly evaluating aircraft led to the demise of Swissair. The A350 may be the airplane they choose, but I'd hope they do a better job of evaluating aircraft needs in terms of size of fleet and total acquired debt.

That's a bit harsh. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with Airbuses, but I do know a number of people who refuse to fly them, because they have a FBW system that "knows better than the pilot" - they prefer the more traditional systems such as Boeing offers (still FBW, but more easily overridden in case of emergency). I'm not sure if the number of people who think like this are significant, but they are out there.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: SQSFO
Posted 2012-11-12 11:44:48 and read 2141 times.

I think this is easy one for for LX, and their order will most likely go to Airbus. However, (and I am not aware of their timeline to replacement but I know that the A333 is significantly new) Boeing can take the order with the 77W if LX is in dire need of new aircraft quick. If they want the 787. maybe they should knock on AI's door.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: PhilInBRN
Posted 2012-11-12 11:55:10 and read 2141 times.

These news are a bit misleading as for the upcoming summer schedule LX will actually reduce overall flying from GVA by 17 weekly frequencies. However, the number of destinations increase due to the addition of CTA and OLB.

[Edited 2012-11-12 11:55:39]

[Edited 2012-11-12 11:58:47]

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-11-12 12:00:02 and read 2141 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
That's a bit harsh. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with Airbuses, but I do know a number of people who refuse to fly them, because they have a FBW system that "knows better than the pilot" - they prefer the more traditional systems such as Boeing offers (still FBW, but more easily overridden in case of emergency). I'm not sure if the number of people who think like this are significant, but they are out there.

I don't have anything wrong with Airbus airplanes. My point is that Swissair did not do a very good job with fleet planning in the 1990s for their own fleet. They pushed Sabena to rapidly replace airplanes that didn't need replacing. Swissair also ordered A340-600s which were too big.

I don't think Swiss will do that again, but am hoping they do a better job with fleet planning.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: something
Posted 2012-11-12 12:30:23 and read 2139 times.

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 3):
From everything I have heard so far, they seem fairly serious about the B777-300ER as it is available earlier and already performs really well for many carriers with comparable networks.

The global economy is recovering too sluggishly to make earlier delivery dates crucial for LX's expansion. How much sooner could they have 77Ws flying for them than A350s? 1, maybe 2 years?

Besides, the LH group is trying very hard to harmonize their fleet. If Boeing builds the 787-1 and LH buys it (likely), then LX will likely become an all 787 widebody airline as a result. If they don't, the A350 will most likely succeed the A340s.

Quoting OM617 (Reply 6):
The article also states they are not interested in receiving 346's from LH because the per-passenger costs are too high.

They aren't even buying their own planes. They buy them with/through LH. If LH has spare A346s because of weakening markets, or because of new 748s arriving, there is just no way introducing a new aircraft type (77W) will make any financial sense in the long run. The A346 would require no re-training, no delivery time, no acquisition cost - those savings alone should pay for the additional fuel bill. Furthermore, if Airbus' projections are to be believed then the A350 will be more efficient relative to the 77W, than the 77W is to the A346. So over a 10 years period, 5 years of A346 and 5 years of A350 should come with a lower fuel bill as 10 years of 77W.

Even if it is not mentioned in the article, but I see LX going for the 787. I'm fairly certain Boeing will build the 787-1.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
One could argue the blind transition to the Airbus fleet without properly evaluating aircraft led to the demise of Swissair.

Yes but then one could look at the facts and realize that this was not the reason.

People on here put way too much emphasis on an airline's choice of aircraft. Air France has all those 777s, yet they keep losing money. LH is making money with A340-600s. KL with MD11s. Condor is the only airline in the Thomas Cook group that doesn't operate A330s but 767s and they're the only profitable airline in the group. Ryanair is making money with 737s, Air Asia is making money with A320s.

There are advantages to having airplanes of only one manufacturer (economies of scale, bargaining power etc.), as there are for having a diverse fleet (risk spread, ironically bargaining power as well, etc.). What is important is the right size of your aircraft. If you can't fill them, you can't turn a profit. If you're too small, the competition will push you out of the market. This has nothing to do whatsoever with who is providing those capacities to you.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: flyingalex
Posted 2012-11-12 13:05:25 and read 2139 times.

Quoting something (Reply 16):
People on here put way too much emphasis on an airline's choice of aircraft. Air France has all those 777s, yet they keep losing money. LH is making money with A340-600s. KL with MD11s. Condor is the only airline in the Thomas Cook group that doesn't operate A330s but 767s and they're the only profitable airline in the group. Ryanair is making money with 737s, Air Asia is making money with A320s.

There are advantages to having airplanes of only one manufacturer (economies of scale, bargaining power etc.), as there are for having a diverse fleet (risk spread, ironically bargaining power as well, etc.). What is important is the right size of your aircraft. If you can't fill them, you can't turn a profit. If you're too small, the competition will push you out of the market. This has nothing to do whatsoever with who is providing those capacities to you.

Exactly. There is no such thing as a "good" aircraft or a "bad" aircraft, and there is not - generally speaking - a "right" aircraft and a "wrong" aircraft.

For an airline, there are two types of aircraft. Those that work for you, and those that don't. And how the two types are defined can vary massively depending on the precise circumstances specific to your airline. Fuel consumption is one factor - usually an important one - but there are a lot more aspects that need to be looked at.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-12 13:32:59 and read 2139 times.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 2):
Didn't SR have a hub for a while at GVA? If my memory serves me correctly it was pulled down as it simply wasn't profitable.

GVA was a secondary hub for Swissair, mainly for routes like French-speaking points in Africa and other points with a lot of O&D traffic. Swissair almost abandoned GVA in the mid-'90s, moving most routes to ZRH except the daily GVA-JFK route and a very few Europe routes. That gave Swissair a very bad name in the GVA market although it was the correct decision strategically to make ZRH as strong a competitor as possible for other major hubs.

I can't see LX making GVA a significant hub again. Switzerland is much too small for two hubs 150 miles apart. Much of their current GVA service is targeted at competing with the LCCs, mainly EasyJet (by far the largest operator at GVA), often with very low fares.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Semaex
Posted 2012-11-12 22:46:46 and read 2138 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
alking about hubs, will LX follow LH and have two hubs across their network?
Quoting ZRH" class="quote" target="_blank">ZRH (Reply 11):
No hub. But rather a focus city with o/d connections. Actually LH has three hubs with FRA, MUC and ZRH (SWISS).

If we talk LH, then the only hub in Switzerland is ZRH. If we talk LX, then I think it would be unfair not to mention the dual-hub strategy they are having, with ZRH and GVA. Remember the first flight of the new LX ZRH-GVA v.v. to emphasize the importance of Geneva.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-11-13 00:53:59 and read 2138 times.

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 3):

I think they are more targeting O&D demand in Geneva than trying to build up a real second hub.

Agree, this looks more like a "focus city" development. If any ad-hoc connection possibilities arise, that's fine too, but O&D is the target. The arrival of the CSeries should make more non-ZRH p2p-routes viable.

Quoting nyswiss (Thread starter):
From a route perspective it plans to increase seasonal flights to Malaga and Palma as well as to Olbia and Catania next summer

Strange route choices, all seasonal leisure destinations; I would have expected them to chase more business-oriented destinations. The danger of leisure routes is that they are up against U2 in that segment.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: ZRH
Posted 2012-11-13 01:33:57 and read 2137 times.

Quoting something (Reply 16):
then LX will likely become an all 787 widebody airline as a result.

I don't think so. LX want's an aircraft with 50 seats more than the current A 340-300. I think even an eventual 787-1000 will be too small. Therefore an 777-300 or a 350-1000 will have the size.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: ZRH
Posted 2012-11-13 01:39:18 and read 2137 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 19):
If we talk LH, then the only hub in Switzerland is ZRH. If we talk LX, then I think it would be unfair not to mention the dual-hub strategy they are having, with ZRH and GVA.

I do not agree. A hub is an airport for transfer passengers mainly from short to long-haul. GVA has short-haul SWISS connections, point to point and only one long-haul (JFK). Therefore I would not call GVA a SWISS hub.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: aviationmaster
Posted 2012-11-13 05:35:42 and read 2135 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 19):
Remember the first flight of the new LX ZRH-GVA v.v. to emphasize the importance of Geneva.

First LX flight was LX2991 from BSL to ZRH.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: something
Posted 2012-11-13 06:05:47 and read 2135 times.

Quoting ZRH (Reply 21):
Quoting something (Reply 16):
then LX will likely become an all 787 widebody airline as a result.

I don't think so. LX want's an aircraft with 50 seats more than the current A 340-300. I think even an eventual 787-1000 will be too small. Therefore an 777-300 or a 350-1000 will have the size.

I have read this too, but I still believe that LX's longhaul replacement will ultimately depend on LH. The A350 seems like a very elegant choice to cover LH, SN, LX and OS (763, 772, 332, 333, 343, 346). But that would be too Airbus heavy. Maybe we'll see the A350 and 787 operated alongside each other, in a 789 and A351 split up. But even that scenario would leave LX with mostly 787s.

Aesthetically speaking, Swiss should buy A359 and 748. Unfortunately, chances of that happening are approaching nil.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: AntonovA330
Posted 2012-11-13 06:17:49 and read 2296 times.

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 3):
From everything I have heard so far, they seem fairly serious about the B777-300ER as it is available earlier and already performs really well for many carriers with comparable networks.

This is quite some news (or still a strong rumour?) as LX have been very loyal to Airbus due to fleet commonality - also a cost factor. Boeing sells T7s with 365pax in a 3-class layout, guess LX are already happy having hundred less though.

Quoting something (Reply 24):
Aesthetically speaking, Swiss should buy A359 and 748. Unfortunately, chances of that happening are approaching nil.

You mean livery-wise, right? It's rather hard to find an aircraft matching the new logo properly and aesthetically...

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: Ferroviarius
Posted 2012-11-13 06:59:12 and read 2285 times.

Could they take the 345s from Singapore Airlines as an interim solution?

Best,
Ferroviarius

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: TomFoolery
Posted 2012-11-13 07:18:57 and read 2419 times.

Quoting something (Reply 24):
I have read this too, but I still believe that LX's longhaul replacement will ultimately depend on LH. The A350 seems like a very elegant choice to cover LH, SN, LX and OS (763, 772, 332, 333, 343, 346).

Interesting that you mention OS. OS is the only one of the LH family who operates 777-200. It would seem more logical that if a 777 were to be chosen, and the basis of a rationalized fleet were considered, it may not be too off the wall. The only thing that really seems odd is that LX will (with the 773) jump from 260/220 pax A330/A340 to a 350+ pax 773 or A350. Except for Edelweiss, I dont really know LX as doing a really high density type operation. To this end, could the article be mistaken with 777-300ER reference?

One important idea here is the 777 is available now, and A350 is still a few years off (not including production delays).

Offering higher notch service out of GVA is what seems to be the target for LX. They seem keenly aware that they are competing with LCCs, but they seem to be aware that their higher product standard sets them apart. LX is also aware that they need to keep costs very lean in order to compete.

It does seem a bit odd that they would target the leisure destinations dominated by the LCCs, however. Then again, a steak house is not really a threat to McDonalds next door...2 different customers at work in GVA, I guess.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: PhilInBRN
Posted 2012-11-13 07:21:17 and read 2410 times.

Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 25):
Boeing sells T7s with 365pax in a 3-class layout, guess LX are already happy having hundred less though.

I suppose, in the case that LX opts for the 77W, the 3 class layout would be in the range of 290 to 300 seats (similar to the 3 class layout employed by Cathay for example).

[Edited 2012-11-13 07:22:47]

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: LXA340
Posted 2012-11-13 13:05:42 and read 2349 times.

Well taking into consideration the fleet comonality aspect SWISS will remain with Airbus; nevertheless it could be that a fleet of 15 + aircraft is large enough to have it's own pilot corps which would then make it an option again for SWISS to go for Boeing.

On another note, looking at the decision LX will make about it's long haul fleet in the next 12 months it also solowly gets time to make orders for replacement of the A32S fleet as of 2015 when the oldest aircraft turn 20. I assume LX will go for A320 and A321NG and the A319 will be replaced with either A320 or with the Bombardier C Jet.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: jayeshrulz
Posted 2012-11-13 13:31:52 and read 2346 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 19):

If we talk LH, then the only hub in Switzerland is ZRH. If we talk LX, then I think it would be unfair not to mention the dual-hub strategy they are having, with ZRH and GVA. Remember the first flight of the new LX ZRH-GVA v.v. to emphasize the importance of Geneva.

Exactly my words mate.

Quoting ZRH" class="quote" target="_blank">ZRH (Reply 22):
I do not agree. A hub is an airport for transfer passengers mainly from short to long-haul. GVA has short-haul SWISS connections, point to point and only one long-haul (JFK). Therefore I would not call GVA a SWISS hub.

I am sorry but you are totally wrong here. Who said a hub is a place for "short to long haul"?
An airline hub is an airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passengers to their intended destination. Not specifically short to long haul or vice versa.
LX can make GVA a second hub just like LH for MUC, but probably their small fleet do not allow this!

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: something
Posted 2012-11-13 13:43:36 and read 2340 times.

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 27):
OS is the only one of the LH family who operates 777-200.

There is also LH Cargo. But if LH Passage wanted 777s, they would have already bought them. Neither the demand in Switzerland, nor the expected delivery dates of 777/787/A350 are news. Swiss may need the extra capacity urgently and the A346 may need a lot more fuel - but as indicated above I doubt that introducing the 777 would be cheaper. Not in the short run, and especially not in the longrun.

Besides, Swiss wants to order in 12 months from now. That could be January 2014. Assume two years from placing an order until entry into revenue service, and we're in 2016. The A350 is just too much better than the 77W to not buy it, because it'd mean flying A346 for 1-2, or possibly 3 years.

Quoting LXA340 (Reply 29):
I assume LX will go for A320 and A321NG and the A319 will be replaced with either A320 or with the Bombardier C Jet.

That's correct.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: aviationmaster
Posted 2012-11-13 13:56:07 and read 2331 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 30):
LX can make GVA a second hub just like LH for MUC, but probably their small fleet do not allow this!

The fleet has nothing to do with this. Due to it's size, Switzerland's home market does not allow for a profitable full-scale two hub operation. Even if LX is able to offer connections through GVA, the airport still currently is a focus city and will remain so in the future.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: sandrozrh
Posted 2012-11-13 15:47:52 and read 2324 times.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 30):

You are wrong mate. ZRH is LX's hub and GVA a focus city for mostly p2p services with a limited availability of connecting possibilities. This has been the case ever sine LX took to the skies and will remain this way. Take LH and DUS. They maintain a comprehensive operation at DUS including longhaul services and they do sell connecting flights through DUS, yet DUS merely is a focus city and not a hub.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: ZRH
Posted 2012-11-14 05:12:55 and read 2266 times.

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 33):
You are wrong mate. ZRH is LX's hub and GVA a focus city for mostly p2p services with a limited availability of connecting possibilities. This has been the case ever sine LX took to the skies and will remain this way. Take LH and DUS. They maintain a comprehensive operation at DUS including longhaul services and they do sell connecting flights through DUS, yet DUS merely is a focus city and not a hub.

Thanx Sandro, that is exactly what I wanted to say. Funnily I also wanted to answer with the example DUS. A second hub would be deadly for SWISS.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-14 08:54:04 and read 2236 times.

Quoting ZRH" class="quote" target="_blank">ZRH (Reply 34):
Thanx Sandro, that is exactly what I wanted to say. Funnily I also wanted to answer with the example DUS. A second hub would be deadly for SWISS.

I'm not so sure. A hub the size of ZRH replicated in GVA, of course not.

But a small focus operation with 4-5 longhaul destinations could easily work.

There is enough demand from GVA to operate a couple flights such as GRU, ORD, HKG/SIN, NRT. In addition to JFK, EWR, IAD, YUL, already served by LX and integrated partners.

Add a couple of flights to Maghreb and Western Africa, that have a bias towards GVA rather than ZRH. There are also a few destinations from GVA that LX could try to re-enter, if they really want to gain a set hold in the market again.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: mah4546
Posted 2012-11-14 10:04:12 and read 2238 times.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 35):
There is enough demand from GVA to operate a couple flights such as GRU, ORD, HKG/SIN, NRT. In addition to JFK, EWR, IAD, YUL, already served by LX and integrated partners.

GVA's busiest long-haul markets are New York, Washington, Dubai, Miami, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: PhilInBRN
Posted 2012-11-14 10:42:05 and read 2222 times.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 35):
There is enough demand from GVA to operate a couple flights such as GRU, ORD, HKG/SIN, NRT. In addition to JFK, EWR, IAD, YUL, already served by LX and integrated partners.

No, there frankly isn't enough O&D demand that would guarantee a success on these routes without having a large scale short haul feed or cannibalizing the ZRH operation at the same time. The only destination I could see being added to the GVA network is NRT (on ANA 787).

Another factor determining expansion at GVA is the constraint in capacity. GVA being one of the busiest one runway airports in Europe (I think second only to LGW) sees limited opportunities in terms of frequencies. Keep in mind that Geneva also handles a ton of GA flights.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, this ''expansion'' in GVA is in fact nice work on behalf of the LX marketing department as the number of flights will actually be reduced by 17 weekly frequencies (barring any changes in frequency on the ZRH-GVA route). There is no indication whatsoever that LX is even evaluating adding more long haul destinations to its rather small network (in terms of destinations) in GVA.

With regards to the long haul replacement, Hohmeister says that LX will make a decision rather within 6 months than within a year. The fact that the 777 is mentioned can mean two things. One, LX is seriously evaluating a realistic number of 77Ws or two, Hohmeister wants to put pressure on Airbus to offer a better deal in terms of price or delivery slots. In the articles from Sunday it is mentioned that LX wants replacement aircrafts to arrive beginning in 2014/2015 if possible. The A350s wouldn't be available until 2018 unless delivery slots are shifted.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: mah4546
Posted 2012-11-14 11:29:10 and read 2217 times.

Quoting PhilInBRN (Reply 37):
No, there frankly isn't enough O&D demand that would guarantee a success on these routes without having a large scale short haul feed or cannibalizing the ZRH operation at the same time. The only destination I could see being added to the GVA network is NRT (on ANA 787).


LAXGVA and MIAGVA - each around 60 PDEW - are large enough to support non-stop service in theory, 3-4x a week each, especially considering non-stop service would boost demand likely by 100% within three years. But, yes, lack of some sort of decent short-haul feed network could be a problem.

The major benefit of Geneva is that yield from the city is very strong.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-14 11:49:56 and read 2210 times.

Quoting PhilInBRN (Reply 37):
No, there frankly isn't enough O&D demand that would guarantee a success on these routes without having a large scale short haul feed or cannibalizing the ZRH operation at the same time. The only destination I could see being added to the GVA network is NRT (on ANA 787).

GRU is 39'000 pax per year, GIG 20'000 and EZE 25'000. With good connections a GRU flight would do fine.

NRT is 46'000 pax

SIN 31'000 - 55% high yield/business

HKG 37'000 - 35% high yield business

SFO - 41'000

LAX - 46'000

So yes there is potential out there, especially high yield traffic. Add a few flights that connect at key times to these flights and you make up for the remaining volume that is missing to fill the back of the planes.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: runway23
Posted 2012-11-14 12:00:47 and read 2210 times.

Quoting PhilInBRN (Reply 37):
Furthermore, as mentioned above, this ''expansion'' in GVA is in fact nice work on behalf of the LX marketing department as the number of flights will actually be reduced by 17 weekly frequencies (barring any changes in frequency on the ZRH-GVA route). There is no indication whatsoever that LX is even evaluating adding more long haul destinations to its rather small network (in terms of destinations) in GVA.

I think you need to put this into perspective.

GVA-LHR being reduced by 7x per week, as one of the daily slots is being used for transatlantic flight
GVA-MAD reduced by 6x, hardly surprising as MAD's economy is down the toilet
GVA-ATH reduced by 6x per day, same as for MAD.

The other decreases are merely cosmetic, or to fit in other frequencies on the other routes.

Yes GVA does lose one based aircraft, but it seems conditioned on the poor economy in MAD/ATH rather than anything else. Once (hopefully) these economies rebound, I am sure we will see these back. Just like I am sure we will see the 6th GVA-LHR frequency come back in winter 2013.

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2012-11-14 12:23:30 and read 2206 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
One could argue the blind transition to the Airbus fleet without properly evaluating aircraft led to the demise of Swissair.

Oh noes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair#History . I've helped to translate the Swissair history stuff for the English Wikipedia.


David

Topic: RE: Swiss To Build Out Geneva
Username: PhilInBRN
Posted 2012-11-14 12:23:40 and read 2207 times.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 39):
GRU is 39'000 pax per year, GIG 20'000 and EZE 25'000. With good connections a GRU flight would do fine.

NRT is 46'000 pax

SIN 31'000 - 55% high yield/business

HKG 37'000 - 35% high yield business

SFO - 41'000

LAX - 46'000

And how many of these passengers currently transfer at either ZRH, FRA or MUC? From a strategic point of view (economies of scale, hub and spoke system) offering additional long haul flights from GVA on own equipment is not a viable option for LX in my opinion.
As I said above, in the future I could see a NRT flight on ANA 787 (4x weekly for example). LAX, SFO and GRU seem to have decent O&D figures, but I currently don't see any airline willing to take the initial risks on these long sectors.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 40):
I think you need to put this into perspective.

Doesn't change the fact that operations are reduced while being promoted as expansion.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 40):
GVA-LHR being reduced by 7x per week, as one of the daily slots is being used for transatlantic flight

What transatlantic flight are you referring to?

Quoting runway23 (Reply 40):
Once (hopefully) these economies rebound, I am sure we will see these back.

You do have a point with regards to the ATH reduction. Competition isn't much of an issue (easy also reduced ATH afaik), the negative effect comes from the poor performance of the overall economy. You can see the effect in ZRH as well (reduction of ATH, discontinuation of SKG).

But especially in the case of MAD a service reduction was foreseeable as the route currently is an absolute blood bath with 4 airlines offering up to 8 flights a day (10 in S12). Prices on LX are as low as CHF 90 return (most likely the lowest in the entire network) for a 2hrs flight (!). It'll be interesting to see how NCE pans out for LX.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/