Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12830 times:
What is the most profitable longhaul route in the world? By long haul, i mean...perhaps greater than 7-8 hours. Much traditionally has been made of the LHR-JFK 'blue ribbon' route-is it really that profitable? What about Asia/Europe routes and Asia-US? Double or triple dailys are not uncommon now, which makes me think that airlines are making truckloads from these sectors. Examples that I know of are:
CX and MH triple daily HKG and KUL to LHR.
SQ triple daily SIN to LHR
QF (in peak season) triple daily SYD to LAX
Then there are the long haul routes by which many carriers operate, providing great choice for consumers but diluting profits for airlines : NRT-LAX? LHR-SIN?
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12679 times:
Personally, I find SIN-LHR an amazing long haul route. Here are two cities spread apart by more than 10000kms and 13-14 hours of flying time, and look at how many flights there are?
SQ: 3 X 744 daily
QF: 2 x 744 daily
BA: 2 X 744 daily.
Thats 7 744s a day and if you consider that 4 of these flights leave in the evening around the same time bte 1.30 and midnight, you have alot of passengers traveling in parallel. I've flown on QF 9 many times to LHR and you know that there are 2 BA flights and an SQ 744 flying alongside you all the way. Dunno...just thought it's rather cool.
ANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12491 times:
I still stand by LHR-JFK. There are so many premium pax that travel this route, the airlines need the frequency to meet demand.
The Economy cabins are probably just icing on the cake for the airlines, and because they have so much capacity in Economy, they offer the lower fares, but its the premium cabins making the profit on these routes, and it's not strange to see that LHR-JFK with BA Club World can cost as much as LHR-SYD with BA Club world.
Okko From Finland, joined Aug 2003, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12322 times:
If we are taking about operating margins, I reckon it should be a route where they have really restrictive bilaterals in place; single designation, limited capacity etc. I recall reading that the Lagos route used to be the most profitable one for BA.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12239 times:
From what I heard international routes to THR are supposed to be very high yield ones.
On the one side prices for the airlines are cheap (fuel cheaper then water*) but prices for the flights are very "not 2 cheap".
At least Lufthansa seems to be quite happy with FRA-THR.
Tokolosh From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12068 times:
Moolies, I think you are right. Generally speaking, the Europe-South Africa route is almost always full! During the apartheid years tickets were twice to three times the price of now, and the flights were still full! It's a very popular destination.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1760 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12034 times:
SFO-NRT and IAD-LHR for UA follow by ORD-FRA, ORD-LHR, SFO-LHR and ORD-NRT.
Also peak season SFO/LAX-SYD too!
Summer UA used to do 3 x 747-400 (21 a week!) and always full and not cheap at all the price out of Japan market. In winter is 2 B744 , any route UA put 2 744 double daily have to be very profitable and high margin.
IAD-LHR in summer UA do 4 daily flights. (2 B763 and 2 B777) now 3 daily include a daytime IAD-LHR flight
Lan_Fanatic From Chile, joined Sep 2001, 1071 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11960 times:
It is a little off topic...but can somebody tell me how did London become SO important for airlines or for the world generally speaking?
I say this because of the 3 daily SQ flights, plus the CX flights, plus MH's plus QF's, and all the services by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, AND sooooo many flights to New York and other US cities, and Eyurope, etc.
Which is London's secret to attract sooooo many people? I've been there and I find it one of the world's most amazing cities together with New York...but I can't explain myself how can London afford SO many people getting there!
Sabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11931 times:
Flights to/from DXB seems to be very profitable. EK is a booming airline (they are annoncing new routes very often) and last moth I experienced myself that LH's and LX's flights are also booked very well, there was not a single seat left in F and in C on both flights.
Moolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11926 times:
I know, but the main thrust of the argument between the two governemnts is the fact that they want a different airline to to to LHR from SA, not only SAA hence the offered natiowndie 3 slots to heathrow and SAA one because in some aspects SAA kill BA.
Before december this year SA carries had 33 slots and used 21 and British carries had 33 and used 31 of them, they are now over 33 and SA are only going to use 23 and they wont get given more.