Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe  
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6069 times:

In the "NZZ am Sonntag" of Zurich is an interview with the Swiss CEO Christoph Franz (in German: http://www.nzz.ch/2005/07/24/wi/articleCZYYE.html ). He says that the long-haul aircrafts are almost full all the times and they are basically satisfied with the revenue on these flights. The yields on the European routes are not good at all. The biggest problems are high fuel prices and the strongly expanding LCCs. It is quite a long interview. I don't have time to translate all. There are also statements about the negotiations with Swiss Pilots (former Crossair pilots). He claims that Swiss tries to solve the problems with dismissals because of reducing the regional fleet. They make the offer to help the dismissed pilots finding a new job with an other airline and even pay them there retraining courses to other aircraft types. He also mentions the reorganization steps with LH. Swiss is considering to change to LH terminal in FRA and MUC as LH probably does to Swiss terminal in ZRH.

[Edited 2005-07-24 15:13:38]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

...says SWISS!

If it's true? We don't know!

They also told the public that the new fare system (a certain amount of low fares) is working very well. Obviously not. They were also saying that the new food concept (food and drinks only against cash) was a great success and that customers gave a very positive feed back). Obviously not! (since they have abandonned this concept).

Seems like the "euphorism" after the LH deal is already gone. No additional longhaul routes planned. Now the oil price is the excuse for the next losses- oh and yes, those stupid low fares airlines who make money! Last time it was SARS, Iraq. Who is next? Oh yeah, those stupid terrorists in London and Egypt!

Regards,
RJ100



none
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 1):
Now the oil price is the excuse for the next losses- oh and yes, those stupid low fares airlines who make money!

You are polemic. Please read the interview. He does not say anything about "stupid LCCs". He only brings up the facts. You are comparing apples with pears. No legacy airline like LH, AF, BA, IB, SK, OS etc is able to make profit on most European routes at the moment. They have different goals. The LCCs can fly on low cost base point to point routes whereas the legacy carriers have long-haul flights which they have to feed. The business of an LCC and a legacy carrier is simply not the same although they both fly. It is of course only business decision to have long-haul or not (at Swiss now it is a decision of LH) but when you have long-haul then you have to feed them and is simply not possible to act like a LCC because you depend on flights to your respective hub.


User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
He does not say anything about "stupid LCCs".

Not there, but here:

http://www.baz.ch/news/index.cfm?Obj...7DED4B4-60CF-2062-F4903D8055F2CECA

"The low fares airlines will operate an additional 90 planes this year. THEREFORE we are not able to...

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
He only brings up the facts.

Facts who are faked. No doubt revenue on longhaul is doing way better than on shorthaul. If someone flies HAM-ZRH-JFK for the price of 800 CHF, the longhaul part will receive 600 CHF and the shorthaul part will receive 200 (or even less in most cases). It's all a question of "accounting".

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
You are comparing apples with pears.

Oh yes, like everytime when I bring up some hard facts...

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
No legacy airline like LH, AF, BA, IB, SK, OS etc is able to make profit on most European routes at the moment

Yes sure, they fly around Europe just for fun. Do you really think that BA, LH etc. only fly for the transfer pax? If so they could reduce its operations and reduce its costs dramatically. But they don't do it.

Regards,
RJ100



none
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 3):
Yes sure, they fly around Europe just for fun.

You don't seem to read my posts. I did not say that they fly these routes for fun in contrary I said that the are DEPENDENT on them because they have to feed their long-hauls.

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 3):
Oh yes, like everytime when I bring up some hard facts...

I am wondering what hard facts you brought? Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally. Actually I love to have as many air connections from any airport and don't rally care which airline operates it, LCC or legacy both is ok for me.


User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
You don't seem to read my posts. I did not say that they fly these routes for fun in contrary I said that the are DEPENDENT on them because they have to feed their long-hauls.

According to your logic, BA could operate a CRJ on LHR-NCE to pick up the "feeding passengers". But they fly with 767s to NCE. If they would only fly around "feeding passengers", then they could reduce their operations drastically, operating with a few 737s, CRJs and Avros. But they don't do it. Also their hub in Gatwick flies around mainly o/d passengers. Or Lufthansa could cut all intra-German flights apart from the flights to/from MUC and FRA.

Why are they flying around then if it is so loss making for them??????

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
I am wondering what hard facts you brought?

Maybe the financial facts about Crossair-Swissair in the last topic about the Saab2000? Your answer to that is still missing. (You don't need to answer here since I dont want to ruin your topic).

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally

True. Do you have a problem with it?

Regards,
RJ100



none
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 5):
Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally
True. Do you have a problem with it?

Yes I do because I don't see any sense in it and find it somehow ridiculous. For me aviation is business (although fun too). The more flight connection from Switzerland we have the better for the economy. As I said I really don't care which airline does it.

BTW the topic of the Saab 2000 you brought up I did not answer because I don't know the facts. You said you have the facts from some people of Hello but you did not yet release any reliable source. But as I said several times an airline like Hello probably can operate with such costs (although Patroni doubts it, he seems to be in airline business) but for a legacy carrier it is not possible. Probably it would be best for Swiss only to concentrate in Europe on feeding flights and do it without any regional point to point connections. This would be a chance for an new airline or for LCCs to expand on these routes. If you really want to start a new airline it is a good idea and wish you luck with it.

Actually for me the long-haul flights are much more important than the most European routes because within Europe you have to many destinations other possibilities (to many cities you are even faster with high speed trains), for this I think long-haul should have priority. The other destinations will in the future be well served by LCCs.


User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

From the passenger's point of view, Swiss is hard to beat.
But I find it strange that Swiss is now citing competition from LCC's as a factor in their current problems, when they have all but abandoned airports like GVA and BSL, leaving the field wide open for LCC's to come in.

Surely there are lucrative markets in BSL and GVA that Swiss are ideally placed to serve, but they are only focused on ZRH. I fly Swiss Business from London to lots of cities in Europe and like the connections that Swiss offers. There used to be so many connections through GVA and BSL, but these are becoming fewer and fewer, not to mention that LX no longer even serve Heathrow from Geneva or Basle.

It is a real shame to see the demise and retreat of Swiss from a high yield city like GVA.

I know that more bases mean more costs, but Swiss does not seem to have the drive and determination to serve these lucrative markets from Geneva and Basle.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 5010 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5804 times:

RJ100,

"Facts who are faked. No doubt revenue on longhaul is doing way better than on shorthaul. If someone flies HAM-ZRH-JFK for the price of 800 CHF, the longhaul part will receive 600 CHF and the shorthaul part will receive 200 (or even less in most cases). It's all a question of "accounting"."

-I've been reading your comments for a while now, and I must say Your a real genius at times.

Are you going to criticize Lufthansa, for their $800 Montreal-Munich-Dusseldorf fare?

Do you have any comprehension for revenue management?

Most, if not, all airlines are turning more and more to long-haul to make up the revenue shortfall from short-haul LCC competition. Alitalia just announced, in their master business plan, that international will be the only way they can prosper in the future.

So much to say that Lufthansa will give Swiss 2 incremental planes.

Methinks, your a bitter man from Basle who has developed a negative attitude for Swiss since they've dropped a lot of BSL flying. Now that Swiss joins star, they are in a better position to capture lucrative east-west/north-south flows


User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5746 times:

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
Yes I do because I don't see any sense in it and find it somehow ridiculous.

Ah thanks.

So being pro Crossair and pro short-haul is ridiculous while pro longhaul, pro Swissair/SWISS is ok.

So, all the people who lost the jobs @Crossair they should simply shut up. How would you have reacted if it was decided that ALL the ex-SR staff would have been laid off in 2001?

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
BTW the topic of the Saab 2000 you brought up I did not answer because I don't know the facts.

That's pretty strange. You always told me that Crossair was only making money due to the Swissair contract. And now I bring up the facts and prove that it was not so and you simply say you do not have the facts? Come on...

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
You said you have the facts from some people of Hello but you did not yet release any reliable source

And I will continue to keep my contact persons secret. SWISS police is reading the forums too. They don't like if someone tells the truth.

BTW, if you don't believe the numbers I have posted then you can simply go to the next library and see the SAirGroup financial reports from the last few years. You will get the same numbers.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
I've been reading your comments for a while now, and I must say Your a real genius at times

No need to get personal. If you have a problem with my posts then simply prove the opposite with some numbers.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
Are you going to criticize Lufthansa, for their $800 Montreal-Munich-Dusseldorf fare?

I'm not going to criticise LH for that because LH did not kill a well working airline before. And because LH seems to do fine with the $800 while SWISS does not do fine (oviously according to their financial results). And because LH is not doing some strange accounting and then is blaming the shorthaul part...

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
So much to say that Lufthansa will give Swiss 2 incremental planes.

This is not confirmed and uncertain at the moment.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
Methinks, your a bitter man from Basle who has developed a negative attitude for Swiss since they've dropped a lot of BSL flying.

Don't worry about me. I am actually a very calm person in my real life, enjoying my life. I am not bitter at all.

I am simply posting my opinion here since I am allowed to do that. If you do not like it, ok, I will continue to post my opinion. If you think everything went fine in SWISS aviation you are simply wrong. It is definitely not how things in a "civilized" country should work. Oh I see, I have a different opinion on that and different opinions are not welcomed. Dream on guys with your longhaul hub. The past showed how well it worked. And at the moment it shows again how well it works. What I forgot: Probably the 7 Saabs based in BSL are the real problem of SWISS. They are the cause of the SWISS losses. Imagine that! SWISS longhaul is such a great success, they have biiiiiig profits. But the 7 Saabs are so loss making that the whole company is in the red numbers! They should immediately lay them off!

RJ100



none
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 5010 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5706 times:

"No need to get personal. If you have a problem with my posts then simply prove the opposite with some numbers."

-Perhaps you should try to shed some numbers that prove your "opinion". The burden of proof is on you, not the board.

"I'm not going to criticise LH for that because LH did not kill a well working airline before. And because LH seems to do fine with the $800 while SWISS does not do fine (oviously according to their financial results). And because LH is not doing some strange accounting and then is blaming the shorthaul part..."

-You still dont know what Swiss's overall yield/RASM/average fares are like.. so your example is anecdotal at best.

"I am simply posting my opinion here since I am allowed to do that. If you do not like it, ok, I will continue to post my opinion. If you think everything went fine in SWISS aviation you are simply wrong. It is definitely not how things in a "civilized" country should work. Oh I see, I have a different opinion on that and different opinions are not welcomed. Dream on guys with your longhaul hub. The past showed how well it worked. And at the moment it shows again how well it works. What I forgot: Probably the 7 Saabs based in BSL are the real problem of SWISS. They are the cause of the SWISS losses. Imagine that! SWISS longhaul is such a great success, they have biiiiiig profits. But the 7 Saabs are so loss making that the whole company is in the red numbers! They should immediately lay them off!"

-Again, long-haul is what Swiss shareholders, investors are attracted to. Lufthansa alone decided to acquire Swiss on the basis of their long-haul capabilities. There is no conspiracy, perhaps you should just give it up.

Again, the burden of proof is on you.


User currently offlineAirMale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5699 times:

FLYYUL: I totally agree with your post. Some bitter people around here just can't let go. They are going on and on and on about what LX does, or doesn't do. Whatever happens, Swiss is FANTASTIC, with or without a minihub in BSL


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5697 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 9):
You always told me that Crossair was only making money due to the Swissair contract.

I never told this. I said that it seems that Crossair needed the money from Swissair to survive otherwise Moritz Suter would never ever have sold his company. I think this is obvious because he really did not like Swissair. I am really convinced that most point to point flights from secondary airports will be run only by LCCs in the future. The legacy airlines will only operate the really big point to point routes and the feeding flights to their hubs.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5682 times:

This thread is a bit intense for me........

I have a simple question, if the LX European network is not performing up to expectations (having easyjet is your backyard cannot make things easier), do you think that LH will maintain a full schedule of European flights at ZRH?


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5670 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13):
do you think that LH will maintain a full schedule of European flights at ZRH?

It depends: if LH really wants to keep up the long-haul operations out of Zurich (like they promised) then they have to have a full schedule feeding net (by LX or LH planes). When they reduce the long-haul operations they also can reduce European flights.


User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5665 times:

Dutchjet,

I agree- can we have some posts related to the topic, and not personal vendettas?

I think that the idea that full service carriers are not making money on shorthaul in Europe is quite worrying, especially when fixed costs for many carriers have already been pared to the bone.


User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5619 times:

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 12):
I never told this.

You wrote on the 17th of March 2005: "Crossair was heavily dependent on Swissair and would have not survived by its own."

I can do a quick search and find more of your phrases if you want to. You say you don't have the facts for that, why are you stating such a thing then then?

And AirMale: Again, I'm not bitter at all. Actually I am the one looking in the future. And this is why I do not agree with SWISS. THEY are the ones living in the past.

And I live in a prosperous region, economically doing very well (while Switzerland in general and the region of Zurich has a rather disappointing performance). Do you really think the success of our region stands or falls with SWISS' decision to base a few lousy aircraft here?

Don't you worry, we are already living in the future while ZRH is still in the past. After Geneva in the 90s and Basel in 2001-2004 it is now ZRH's turn to receive the "big bang".

Regards,
RJ100



none
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5608 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 16):
You wrote on the 17th of March 2005: "Crossair was heavily dependent on Swissair and would have not survived by its own."

Yes I wrote this but you should have brought the context. I clearly said that Moritz Suter only had sold "his baby" because they needed the money.


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5595 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 16):
And I live in a prosperous region, economically doing very well (while Switzerland in general and the region of Zurich has a rather disappointing performance)

Oh man bring the figures. This is simply not true. Recently there was report in the newspapers that the constructing business is increasing in all big regions in Switzerland but Basel is weakest. BTW Zurich is all the time used as the cash-cow for the rest of Switzerland, but everybody complains that we are arrogant. We pay more 1.5 billion CHF to rest of Switzerland because of a rather ridiculous finance compensation to other regions. BTW this is my last answer to such ridiculous off-topic post.


User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Well Basel has a GDP growth of 2-3% every year (since the last ten years or so). While Zurich had rather disappointing figures.

I have said in my former posts that I think Basel and Zurich should work together. Such wars we have are not how things should be and I would like to excuse myself for that. The figures are only to show that we simply do not need a few lousy SWISS airplanes here.

And construction business in Basel-Stadt is doing not so well because there is no room for expansion. It is in the outskirts of BSL where new companies and people settle down...just for your information.

Regards,
RJ100



none
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26136 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5530 times:

Swiss needs a coherant redesign the European operation to bring it closer to profitability.

In 2004, 56% (highest percentage in Europe) of Swiss Zurich traffic was made of intransit connection passengers.
Its quite clear the small home market cannot support a significant long haul network without the benefit of European connection traffic to provide feed.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSwisswings From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 60 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

Thank you, AirMale. This thread is quite intensive. Guys, keep to the facts and try not to be personal. It's about aviation here and for the fun of it, personal vendettas are misplaced in this forum. You may like or dislike Swiss, their strategy and decisions, but you have to live with them. Keep cool, guys.

User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

About this BSL versus ZRH, CRX versus SWR war, let's name a couple of facts:

During those glorious Crossair and Swissair days, Basel was the spoke of Moritz Suter's Eurocross. Thank's to Eurocross we also had good connections out of Bern to most European cities, feeded by up to 5 daily flights on the BRN-BSL route. It is very obvious that the Eurocross system mainly served business travelers (just look at the fares they applied).

LC Carriers normally attract the major part of it's customers from creating "new markets". Helvetic realized this by finding out that they got much less business travelers than people on the move for their vacation. For those not familiar with Helvitic.com, it's a Swiss LCC serving the "premium LC market". Someone could think that a premium LC product serves business travelers. It does obviously not.

Passengers normally traveling on LCC do not care that much where their plane leaves. They take the long ride to this airport, the LCC gets the cheap rates for landing, handling etc. Look at Ryanair... in the days, Intersky served Bern, they got customers on their flight for Berlin THF, coming from Winterthur trough whole Switzerland to board in countyside Bern airport!

Since BSL lost the Eurocross, most connections started since, are provided by LCC. Look at Easyjet....
LH was optimizing it's feeder traffic to their hubs, same they did since at Bern with their flights to MUC, which are always full.

It is quite obvious that BSL could attract LCC looking for cheaper fees than they had it at ZRH, let's name for example EasyJet or very lately SkyEurope. It is also very obvious that those passengers these companies are serving are not only from the Region of BSL. They are furthermore from the whole Swiss-French-German market, looking for a cheap departure. The conclusion then is also that those connections are not in a direct relation with the industry based in BSL. They are more on the tourist side.

Now some questions:

If the Eurocross in BSL was profitable, why did nobody take it up again, after Swiss started to shut it down?

Why did Moritz Suter launch a traditional charter airline by setting up Hello and did not go for an Eurocross back up?

Why could the EuroConnect project of a BSL based regional airline, using mainly ATR's (set up by former Crossair employees) never be realized?

Conclusion:

It is obvious, there is a market in BSL. The Eurocross system may have worked in the "System Crossair" as a total. This does not mean that it works in a "System Swiss". It is also more than logic, that Swiss International Air Lines is trying to concentrate it's activities on one single hub. I am very sorry for the guys in BSL, but this hub is in first priority ZRH. This is nothing than logic.

I can understand the big frustration with former Crossair employees, friends and supporters as well as in the BSL region. But we also need to be realistic. Not everything created (or terminated) by Swiss was bad or wrong. Just to remember: The first CEO of Swiss was André Dosé who was during his entire carrier with Crossair! In the end of a movie everybody knows..... finally the market will decide. This is exactly what happened here. BSL got it's new position, the one of a strong hub serving mainly the LCC.


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
During those glorious Crossair and Swissair days, Basel was the spoke of Moritz Suter's Eurocross. Thank's to Eurocross we also had good connections out of Bern to most European cities, feeded by up to 5 daily flights on the BRN-BSL route. It is very obvious that the Eurocross system mainly served business travelers (just look at the fares they applied).

LC Carriers normally attract the major part of it's customers from creating "new markets". Helvetic realized this by finding out that they got much less business travelers than people on the move for their vacation. For those not familiar with Helvitic.com, it's a Swiss LCC serving the "premium LC market". Someone could think that a premium LC product serves business travelers. It does obviously not.

Passengers normally traveling on LCC do not care that much where their plane leaves. They take the long ride to this airport, the LCC gets the cheap rates for landing, handling etc. Look at Ryanair... in the days, Intersky served Bern, they got customers on their flight for Berlin THF, coming from Winterthur trough whole Switzerland to board in countyside Bern airport!

Since BSL lost the Eurocross, most connections started since, are provided by LCC. Look at Easyjet....
LH was optimizing it's feeder traffic to their hubs, same they did since at Bern with their flights to MUC, which are always full.

It is quite obvious that BSL could attract LCC looking for cheaper fees than they had it at ZRH, let's name for example EasyJet or very lately SkyEurope. It is also very obvious that those passengers these companies are serving are not only from the Region of BSL. They are furthermore from the whole Swiss-French-German market, looking for a cheap departure. The conclusion then is also that those connections are not in a direct relation with the industry based in BSL. They are more on the tourist side.

Now some questions:

If the Eurocross in BSL was profitable, why did nobody take it up again, after Swiss started to shut it down?

Why did Moritz Suter launch a traditional charter airline by setting up Hello and did not go for an Eurocross back up?

Why could the EuroConnect project of a BSL based regional airline, using mainly ATR's (set up by former Crossair employees) never be realized?

Conclusion:

It is obvious, there is a market in BSL. The Eurocross system may have worked in the "System Crossair" as a total. This does not mean that it works in a "System Swiss". It is also more than logic, that Swiss International Air Lines is trying to concentrate it's activities on one single hub. I am very sorry for the guys in BSL, but this hub is in first priority ZRH. This is nothing than logic.

I can understand the big frustration with former Crossair employees, friends and supporters as well as in the BSL region. But we also need to be realistic. Not everything created (or terminated) by Swiss was bad or wrong. Just to remember: The first CEO of Swiss was André Dosé who was during his entire carrier with Crossair! In the end of a movie everybody knows..... finally the market will decide. This is exactly what happened here. BSL got it's new position, the one of a strong hub serving mainly the LCC.

Couldn't agree more!


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Hi!

You guys know that everytime there is a nice topic about SWISS I'll be there!!! First of all it's interesting to see that most of the users talking in this topic are swiss and we must understand, respect and above all (when we write... ) be wise because we are outsiders in most of these issues. I feel that after reading all the words ( and specially from our swiss friends... ) that there are some wounds regading the end of Swissair, Crossair, Crossair taking over Swissair network that need to be healed, and that will take some time. In my point of view ( and this is truly an outsider point of view, but sometimes someone from outside can have a better prespective, so please understand that... ) what happened to Swissair was sad, the take over by Crossair was in my prespective the best possible option at that time and maybe the mentality of a truly regional/european/charter focused airline like Crossair shocked a lot with the global/international/historic heritage airline like Swissair, and that pays, but nothing else could be donne. So for me what was donne was donne, some mistakes but we always learn with our mistakes. SWISS started weak but now seeing the past, specially the last 2 years, SWISS started to get stronger and at this point we don't see any more topics about how many months SWISS will last but we see SWISS has an airline that has legs to walk and it is going steady and firm!
I do agree that SWISS product is better than any other historic airline, last time I flew SWISS was in December 2003, LAX-ZRH, then I had the chance to fly on long-haul flights with TAP ( LIS-RIO-LIS ) and KLM ( AMS-KIX-AMS ) and you know what, SWISS product is good, the fleet is good, the service is good like any other airline, so SWISS is going good!
If we look to european network, not so good, but Europe is no longer a market for a lot of "flowers" or big expectations, Europe market is beeing more and more like North America market, some basic services and that's it. I still feel that in North America some flights should have a better service, if you fly more than 3 hours at least you could have a basic meal service and some amenities like a movie, etc. etc. But in Europe you you want to fly only far countries like Portugal, Greece, Turkey or Russia will get flights longer than 3 hours, so a truly basic service it's enough. I flew from AMS to LIS with KLM, it took us almost 3 hours and I got in both ways I got a breakfast on LIS-AMS flight and a light meal from AMS-LIS flight, very nice, cool... but enough!!! I think SWISS geeting again some basic meal service on european flights it will be good for them and I'm sure will increase the figures but we must agree that the times are different now ( I still remember flying most around Europe and having hot lunches or dinners with full complementary services.... great days!!! ) and we must adapt. But intercontinental service needs more and more to get better, we pass many hours inside a plane and we need as better treatment, and SWISS gives that!
Regards


25 Avion : Hi I for one think that RJ100 has a point. How does Swiss split up the revenues for a HAM-ZRH-LAX flight? A while ago i read that they split according
26 SWISSER : Hi Jose, nice statement! Indeed the issues are quite on topic and RJ100 has a different thought on how Crossair/SWISS must have been runned from the b
27 Post contains images RJ100 : Good morning everyone Good to see that the discussion is lined up again on a higher niveau. I will just quote a few statements and give my personal op
28 SWISSER : Yes, off course! I explained it very clearly to them and if you are in further plans in the future you will certainly be invited! any potential custo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Frills Are Ok But Not To Take Me On My Hols posted Thu Jan 13 2005 17:38:29 by Orion737
Delta Surveys Frequent Flyers On Long-haul posted Thu Oct 12 2006 21:36:45 by SLCUT2777
787 V/s 767 (All Series) On Long Haul posted Wed Oct 11 2006 16:58:37 by Eastern023
BMI To Install Lie Flat Beds On Long Haul posted Tue Sep 19 2006 19:32:31 by Jamesontheroad
Short Haul Routes With Heavies In Europe posted Mon Aug 21 2006 01:17:34 by EMA747
Could BA Use Their 757's On Long Haul Routes? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:44:30 by Gilesdavies
Thomsonfly To Increase Legroom On Long-haul posted Fri Jul 21 2006 12:11:36 by BananaBoY
Short Haul Planes On Long Haul Routes posted Wed Apr 12 2006 17:08:51 by Cedarjet
Onboard Massage Therapist On Long Haul posted Fri Dec 30 2005 20:01:32 by AAMaddog
Smoking On Long Haul? posted Sun Nov 27 2005 22:45:15 by Ukkiwibird