AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1163 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3358 times:
When airlines introduce super-long haul service does it hurt revenue on flights to other destinations that they bypass?
The example that comes to mind is Emirates nonstop New York-Dubai flight.
Has it hurt loads on their flights to Europe? I know that a very significant number of passengers on the DXB LHR flights, for example, used to connect to US/Canadian destinations. HAve the loads on the DXB LHR sector fallen since the nonstop to New York commenced?
Also, does anyone know how the Emirates nonstop to New York is doing? How have the loads been? A friend's father flew them several weeks ago and said the flight was not full at all- but that could be an isolated case.
OhTheDrama747 From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
You raise a valid point but i can't see it hurting their other routes that much. The main reason that comes to mind is because quite a few folk don't like being in an aircraft that long and prefer to stop over at an airport to stretch their legs etc. However i have no hard facts this is just my thoughts.
Aerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3263 times:
There flights out of JFk must be doing well. I've tried non revving on them several times last year and this year and on every occasion I and several other pax have not been able to get a seat because of full flights. And I had J upgrades on every occasion
DAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
In this specific case, I would say the loss of pax on the DXB-LON route that used to connect there is offset by the ever increasing number of pax that O&D in London, therefore, this would only mean it will take Emirates a bit longer to add an additional daily flight.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3156 times:
If you dig around you'll find the SQ long hauls to Los Angeles and Newark have torn the heart out of yields for the US carriers using inferior equipment in terms of range, and enhanced the use of Singapore as a hub for SE Asia.
When larger more ergonomically suitable jets become available, maybe an ultra long haul 747-Advanced or A380-700, the market will migrate to them in a big way.
The 747SP was given sceptical treatment when it introduced non-stop Sydney-Los Angeles flights in about 1978/79.
But that was where the traffic went, and once the 744s came along in 1989 there was no going back to one or two stop trans Pac flights.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13554 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3066 times:
I would suggest that the Ultralonghauls [ulh] probably have modest impact on other flights. Despite their long seat time, it does mean the total time of travel is less, which is critical for the overwhelming numbers of business passangers whom use the ulh's and has led to them being offered. There are fewer opportunites for mechanical and traffic problems from having to make a refuling stop. While those stop airports may lose income from landing rights, fuel sales, catering services and connected employment in the short run, it probably is replaced in a short time by more and other flights that now have access available to them. It probably opens up more seats and flights on those one stop flights they replace, where there is increasing demand due to trade between Asia and Europe/North America, the most popular routes for ulh's, from flights that replace going to/from their refuling stop airport.