OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4684 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5492 times:
MUC won't suffer, ZRH will bet turned into a regional hub with maybe 6 intercontinental LH/LX routes if they're lucky. And you can bet half of those will be served by other STAR members.
Avianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5858 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5410 times:
Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 1): MUC won't suffer, ZRH will bet turned into a regional hub with maybe 6 intercontinental LH/LX routes if they're lucky. And you can bet half of those will be served by other STAR members.
totally corect, as the LH terminal is half payed by Lufthansa.
Reifel From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 1155 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5278 times:
Avianca, what you mean is that actually LH owns an important percentage of shares in that Terminal (or the consortium/holding/whatever that holds it) right? Does anybody have exact facts of the organisation of this?
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5275 times:
I also think that MUC won't suffer. But in the today's press releases there are interesting statements, that LH would keep almost all existing long-haul operations out of Zurich. In the NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) online there is an interesting quote that it even could be possible to increase the number of long-haul aircrafts in Zurich from 18 to 20 http://www.nzz.ch/2005/03/13/wi/articleCNPRF.html (only in German)
Avianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5858 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5259 times:
Quoting Reifel (Reply 5): Avianca, what you mean is that actually LH owns an important percentage of shares in that Terminal (or the consortium/holding/whatever that holds it) right? Does anybody have exact facts of the organisation of this?
The terminal 2 of MUC airport is half financed by Lufthansa, and LH and the partners are using the terminal exclusive. I think there is a consortium between LH and the Munich Airport Management company FMG.
Reifel From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 1155 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5170 times:
Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 6): But in the today's press releases there are interesting statements, that LH would keep almost all existing long-haul operations out of Zurich. In the NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) online there is an interesting quote that it even could be possible to increase the number of long-haul aircrafts in Zurich from 18 to 20
Seems logic to me... after all, long-haul-routes of Swiss are doing well compared to the short-haul intra-european flights.
2nd aspect: Switzerland, and especially the region around Zurich which is very crowded, quite rich, requires flights from Zurich and wont not fly to MUC or FRA first... There is also an important density of companies requiring business travel from/to ZRH.
Kkfla737 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5159 times:
I believe Zurich will be used almost exclusively as a transcontinebtal hub if the merger goes through with limited intra-Europe flights
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5147 times:
Quoting Kkfla737 (Reply 10): I believe Zurich will be used almost exclusively as a transcontinebtal hub if the merger goes through with limited intra-Europe flights
There is not enough O/D traffic for this. It would need quite a number of feeder flights.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5107 times:
Quoting Reifel (Reply 9): . after all, long-haul-routes of Swiss are doing well compared to the short-haul intra-european flights.
You are probably right. Swiss' long-haul flights are filled by 85%, but I actually don't know the yields. It is true that they are loosing the most money on regional European flights with small planes (EMB 145 and Saab 2000) and on some other European routes because of the no frills airlines.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4983 times:
I don't see MUC naturally that uneffected. So far LH only had the option to introduce a new long haul in FRA and MUC. But because FRA is so crowded the decision was could usually only be made for MUC. Now MUC has to compete with ZRH.
MUC has a broader feeder network but to most bigger cities ZRH is equally connected. And ZRH is the better O&D market. With the huge German market behind them LH can route it's passengers as good via ZRH than MUC.
For this summer season LH begins a new nonstop MUC-IAD. Next year ZRH-IAD can be an as good option.
ORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4476 times:
According to the CNN article on change will be a focus on routing ZRH to FRA and MUC. The article also said that LH wants to capitalize on the brand appeal and premium traffic on LX. ZRH will stay a LH/LX hub but not nearly as large as MUC and FRA. IMHO the synergy will help both carriers.
Atlantic From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3937 times:
Quoting ORDagent (Reply 15): LH wants to capitalize on the brand appeal and premium traffic on LX
expect the brand appeal to disappear. The reason people fly Swiss is exactly because it is not LH. There is no real synergy happening here, it is one company taking over another one and with it a quite interesting market.
KWI From Kuwait, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3101 times:
I'm very curious to know as to why LX hasn't considered the option of joining Skyteam? Although some may argue that there are enough Skyteam hubs in Europe, Paris, Rome, Milan, Amsterdam, and Prague, Star Alliance has quite a few too, Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna, Warsaw, Copenhagen (and Stockholm and Oslo, to a much lesser extent). I understand perfectly that the optimal Alliance for them was oneworld, because of Zurich's perfect location as a central European hub. But why haven't there been any discussions regarding Skyteam?
UAMAYBACH1239 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2844 times:
I'm very curious to know as to why LX hasn't considered the option of joining Skyteam? Although some may argue that there are enough Skyteam hubs in Europe, Paris, Rome, Milan, Amsterdam, and Prague, Star Alliance has quite a few too, Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna, Warsaw, Copenhagen (and Stockholm and Oslo, to a much lesser extent). I understand perfectly that the optimal Alliance for them was oneworld, because of Zurich's perfect location as a central European hub. But why haven't there been any discussions regarding Skyteam?
KWI
Joining an alliance is a priveledge not a right. The existing members also vote on new members, and there is a initiation fee so to speak. If swiss was at all appealing to skyteam, DL would have kept pretty close tabs after SwissAir.
Jcded From Switzerland, joined Jan 2004, 212 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
UAMAYBACH1239 : Airfrance which is the most influential player in skyteam doesnt realy have a place for Swiss in Sky team, it simply doesnt fit into their route structure, also SkyTeam doesn't have the same quality levels that Star or OneWorld have.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
I would think that they keep a lot of the intercontinental routes, because it's not just people flying from Zurich, and to a lesser extent Geneva, but the people that need to go there. The banks are a big draw, maybe the international organizations to a lesser degree, and that kind of commerce and activity needs to be linked directly to other major world financial and governmental hubs. Zurich may seem like less of a hub a few years from now, but it will definietly stay a gateway to certain important places IMHO. And maybe the service stays premium to these cities to conserve that traffic.
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
AviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2464 posts, RR: 38 Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
I think Lufthansa would be doing a huge error by just closing down the majority of long haul routes out of Zurich, plus I don't even think they would be gaining a huge number of new passengers by this.
If Zurich is downgraded and Lufthansa makes local passengers connect via their Hubs in Frankfurt or Munich, then it wouldn't even be sure if these passengers will take the pain to fly and connect via FRA or MUC. Because if that's the case, they might aswell also fly via Paris (AF), Amsterdam (KL) or London (BA) to get to any intercontinental destination.
And what happens to Munich? Like others have said, the Munich Hub won't be affected all that much.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 445 posts, 
From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 495 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5858 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 1155 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 22 posts, 
From Kuwait, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
