ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 3762 posts, RR: 15 Posted (8 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 5277 times:
How is Lufthansa's second attempt to build a successful hub in Munich working? I know they tried this before and it did not work very well and much of the long haul operation was reassigned to Frankfurt.
Kkfla737 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months ago) and read 5148 times:
They are increasing frequencies to Delhi this summer but dropping service to another destination, I think it's Dubai all together from Munich. This is the 2nd or 3rd go at an alternative hub for LH and my guess is that it will not work. Frankfurt is still one of the best hubs in Europe and LH really doesn't need to shift capacity from it as of yet, IMHO.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months ago) and read 5127 times:
As far as your can hear in the public they are doing very fine. LH is one of the few airlines who managed to handle a dual hub system. Alitalia (MXP & FCO) and BA (GTW & LHR) tried the same but failed.
The new Terminal 2 in MUC was mainly financed by LH, so I think thea have a long term view on their MUC hub and it's not a short living experiement. In FRA they are heavily investing to accomodate the A380 (new maintenance hall, new first class terminal), so they are also commited to FRA. I don't think that LH would have done so much investment if their dual hub system wouldn't be succesfull.
Phaeton From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 406 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months ago) and read 5124 times:
I have the impression that it seems to be working relatively well. Terminal 2 here at Munich Airport was opened in June 2003 and seems to be operating smoothly. Capacity doesn't seem to be a problem yet other than in Frankfurt. Wolfgang Mayrhuber, Lufthansa's CEO, has said that he is quite satisfied with the operations at MUC.
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.", Winston Churchill
San747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4934 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5096 times:
From what I've seen, MUC seems to be doing well... LH serves many international destinations... I know that's not the only thing that makes a hub work, but I've heard nothing but accolades for the new terminal.
And a question: is LGW really a BA hub? I know that they base 737s and 777s there, but that is because of the Bermuda treaty? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5093 times:
It should also be noted, that MUC already has more European flights (not sure if passengers too, but I think so) than FRA. There are also more German domestic flights in MUC than in FRA. But in terms of intercontinental flights mUC has only one quarter of FRA's flights.
Lufthansa747 From Philippines, joined May 1999, 3174 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
I guess that's the key. Many W/T/L class specials (ex-HEL at least) require connections via MUC. Thus, freeing up the longhaul capacity for FRA. IMHO makes perfect sense, although LH 772/782 with no F to Bangkok is kind of a bummer.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5070 times:
The role of LGW for BA is to serve the secondary airports from London. Cities like Venice, Genoa, Ibiza, Nantes, Toulon, Vilnius, etc. True, it's a not a hub in the same style as LHR. There's less connecting and those that are connecting are more often shorthaul-to-shorthaul connections rather than shorthaul-to-longhaul (or vice versa) at LHR. Also, LGW serves many domestic cities that LHR doesn't. INV, JER, etc. Also, given the massive size of the London area, LGW can market itself to those in the southeast of London as an alternative to LHR to many major European business centres like Paris, Amsterdam, etc. BA, as much as they are an LHR-centric carrier, could not be the airline they are without LGW.
[Edited 2004-12-26 17:46:23]
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Mozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2014 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4882 times:
I can only judge from what LH and the German press say about MUC, and based on that I believe that MUC is doing fine and has a perspective as a hub. Also, remember that MUC is now Europe's 8th biggest airport - smaller than the likes of LHR, FRA, CDG and AMS; but bigger than some "primary hubs" like MXP, CPH or ZRH. Also, it has some interesting records: it is the one airport which has links to the highest number of European cities (not number of flights, but cities served), it has more LH European flights than FRA, aND accroding to MUC airport, no other airport serves more cities in Italy (although I hardly believe that... I believe there is no other foreign airport serving more cities in Italy):
Still, I feel that MUC is somewhat of a secondary hub for LH. True, more and more intl. destinations are being served from there, but look at the structure of the feeder traffic: hordes of RJs!!!!! I think this will only change (=be upgraded to real planes) once MUC's importance as a hub increases.
I wish them all the best, I like MUC airport a lot (going through there 1-2 times every week).
Horus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
I'm surprised their MUC-Middle East services haven't worked out. They used to fly MUC-CAI and MUC-TLV with A320s but these were suspended in 2002. The MUC-DXB route will be axed next summer, which will leave THR as their only Middle Eastern destination.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4649 times:
Nothing to worry. Can't say about CAI, but TLV isn't served anymore because both allowed frequencies are used for FRA where they have a better feed from the USA, and that is what fills their Israel flights.
Dubai is axed every summer. Traffic to Dubai is lower in summer due to its weather, but it will come back in winter.
German forums are talking about additional daily flights to BRU, GVE, Genoa, Bologna, Trieste and Verona. So MUC is working quite well.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4636 times:
MUC-DXB comes back in the winter, it is only a summer suspension.
I read an article in Aviation Week about LH's dual-hub system and it does seem to be doing quite well for LH.
LH has no choice but to operate a dual-hub system as FRA has reached capacity until additional runways can be constructed which will not happen for quite some time.
So the only choice for growth for LH would be to operate a 2nd hub and it seems to be doing quite well.
As others have mentioned, MUC has more domestic and more intra-Europe than FRA does, while FRA of course has much more intercontinental flights than MUC does.
Regarding AZ and MXP and FCO. It should be kept in mind that MXP is a relatively new facility.
I think AZ experimented with the dual-hub system but they probably realized that for an airline their size that it isn't practical to maintain two hubs.
MXP is a better facility than FCO and it is better geographically located for connections.
Milan is also the economic and business center of Italy.
This is why over the years, many routes and flights have been transfered from Rome to Milan. I think Alitalia will always maintain a significant number of flights from Rome as it is a large market and tourists want to get there. So it is being transformed more of an O&D destination while Milan primarily relies on connections.
I have heard Alitalia's connections to the Middle East from Milan are quite convenient and cheap.
Also unlike Lufthansa, Alitalia is not facing congestion restrictions and are able to continue to grow in Milan Malpensa, while Lufthansa is unable to do this with its Frankfurt hub.
In the case of British Airways. BA has no choice but to maintain a dual-hub system with LHR and LGW because of the Bermuda II restrictions. I have to say that it does create a nightmare for BA and its passengers.
Transfering from LHR to LGW is time consuming. I've had to do it once. Now thankfully the DEN flight goes to LHR, so I no longer have to do this.
BA has significantly reduced its European destinations and flights and transfered them to LHR. What BA is doing however is focusing LGW as an airport for lower-yielding leisure routes (GB Airways) to various destinations such as Palma de Mallorca and other low-yielding markets.
However, overall their presence in LGW has shrunken significantly. If ever the Bermuda II is modified or dropped, BA will definately want to transfer all its USA destinations in LGW to LHR and LGW will become strictly a secondary small hub for leisure destinations in Europe and will primarily cater the leisure market for people living in the UK.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4414 posts, RR: 76 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
I've often wondered what the deal is with locating service to certain intercontinental destinations uniquely at MUC. If the yield argument brought forward by Lufthansa747 is true, then what are services to cities like CAN, KUL and SGN doing at MUC rather than at FRA?
I can see the deal with CLT and YUL, which have flights, albeit operated by code share parterns, at FRA as well. But if FRA is the airline's high-yield hub, then I would expect the sole service to CAN, KUL and SGN to operate from there. I understand that CAN is being repositioned next year, and SGN is rather low-yield, but KUL? If LH is planning to give MH a run for their money in Germany, they'll have to come up with better than a one-stop flight from a secondary hub.
So, what's the deal with the intercontinental part of the hub? Lufthansa has been blowing hot and cold about it, building the hub and then taking flights back again. DXB was not suspended last summer, JNB all of a sudden disappeared from this winter's plans, which also, for the first time in many years, lack daily SFO flights. I don't see the strategy...