Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LY May Lose Official Status By Cancelling CAI Rout  
User currently offlineIAD380 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Haaretz reports today that the Director General of Israel's Transportation Ministry threaten to revoke El Al's status as the official national airline because LY plans to stop flying to CAI on November 23. The route is no longer profitable for LY, which is encouraging a private airline, Arkia, to take it over and serve it with smaller aircraft. According to Haaretz, the Director General is seeking an emergency meeting with other high government officials because he believes that it is vitally important for LY to continue operating this route.

This reasoning makes no sense. The Israeli government has privatized LY. It no longer owns most of the voting stock, and it no longer subsidizes the airline's losses. There is no "national security" or other compelling reason for a government to force a for-profit private company to fly an unprofitable commerical route. Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyingdove From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

I think El Al needs to make up its mind. Does it want to be a special carrier with special rights and privelages (and therefore special obligations as well), or not?

User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25399 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

The Isreali government should likewise allow LY just be to another commercial entity serving its own interest and not being forced to still act as an extension of the government.

Goes both way.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJm017 From Jamaica, joined Jun 2002, 1227 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter):
Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?

Definitely for political reasons. To maintain the illusion of normal relations with Egypt (or a to de-emphasize the fact that relations between the two countries have deteriorated).

But if they substitute another airline, I really do not see the big deal. In fact, given that LY is privatized, I think it's wrong to threaten them. The fact is, if this went through, there would still be a presence albeit a less prominent one.



"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 3865 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter):


This reasoning makes no sense. The Israeli government has privatized LY. It no longer owns most of the voting stock, and it no longer subsidizes the airline's losses. There is no "national security" or other compelling reason for a government to force a for-profit private company to fly an unprofitable commerical route. Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?

Then for the reasons you stated, no reason for the airline to be the "official national airline", non?


User currently offlineCO7e7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2849 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Doesn't LY fly a 752 to CAI??

-Zaki


User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 602 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 3714 times:

My understanding is that the sole existence of this route is dependent on Western tourists using the TLV-CAI flight to get around on a larger Holy Land tour.


Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineJFK69 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 3704 times:

I am not sure of the aircraft that they fly down there, but would it make sense to lease a small aircraft (DASH 8 for example) to keep national status?

User currently offlineAA87 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

On the political/natioanl airline stuff, simple. Israel not a "normal" country (perpetual state of war since its creation) and El Al is therefore not a "normal" airline. Privatize all you want, El Al is their Pan Am and will remain so for decades to come at least.

I flew LY on that route as a child in 1980, shortly after the route began. Our 720 landed late at night, boarded down the airstairs with an Egyptian army APC with 2 soldiers, weapons at the ready - protecting an Israeli plane. I remember the indelible image of the El Al tail on Cairo's tarmac, with Arab tails in the background (Egyptair, Saudia, Syrian). At that precise moment, peace on earth actually seemed possible ...


User currently offlineSemsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Why should Arkia fly the route? The security costs are too high. The Government should subsidise the service if they want it.

User currently offlineBrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Maybe they should codeshare with MS, do they still fly the route?


I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Flew that route from TLV in '99. LY 732 out, 738 back. As AA87 describes it, there was something of a movie-set atmosphere with the Star of David planes ringed by local troops on arrival/departure and an APC escort on the ground at all times. The in-house Israeli security team seemed to have been on the ground prior to the plane's arrival. Must cost some. I wondered about the Egyptian employee who was wandering around the terminal entrance looking for passengers to guide (and he wanted baksheesh for it) in a bright blue 'EL AL' overall suit. Wonder if he's still doing that!


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offline4xRuv From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter):
Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?

Well, according to the newspaper(Yediot), the line does actually have demand and the plains are full, and still the security costs make it non profitable for LY, so I don't see how can IZ profit from this line.


User currently offlineSemsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

Brightcedars MS stopped operating the route in 1948. My mother flew on MS once because the train was full.
Air Sinai operate the route though it's really a front for MS and managed by the same company. They set up Air Sinai because of political reasons. They don't want MS aircraft flying to TLV.
I doubt that Air Sinai would accept to code share.

Here is a link with a picture of a Misrair (Egyptair) De Havilland in TLV. Another airline Palestine Airways used to fly to Beirut.

http://www.geocities.com/wassch71/palestinian/history1.html

[Edited 2006-10-27 15:57:56]

User currently offlineIAD380 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 4):
Then for the reasons you stated, no reason for the airline to be the "official national airline", non?

I don't think any government should force private sector airlines to operate unprofitable routes for political reasons. If your argument is that LY must continue flying to CAI because it is an "official" airline, then the Israeli government should subsidize unprofitable routes that are maintained for political reasons. However, my understanding is that the Israeli government refuses to subsidize LY precisely because it is now a private company.

Quoting Semsem (Reply 13):
Air Sinai operate the route though it's really a front for MS and managed by the same company.

This is ironic! MS won't fly to TLV for political reasons, yet its front company, Air Sinai, may end up with a monopoly on this route. If demand is high and planes are full, as 4XRuv says, then Air Sinai will probably increase flights between CAI and TLV after LY discontinues service. If so, MS could find TLV to be a very profitable route, despite its claims that it does not fly to Israel for political reasons.


User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Reply 14):
subsidize

 thumbsup 
The carrot is more consistent than the stick with the needs of the government. It is they, not El Al, who benefit from the political effects of having El Al serve CAI. They should figure out how much that is worth to them, and attach up to that much to the route as a subsidy.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter):
The route is no longer profitable for LY, which is encouraging a private airline, Arkia, to take it over and serve it with smaller aircraft.


Why not switch to a 737 if it is such a big deal?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter):
Arkia, to take it over and serve it with smaller aircraft

Why not simply Arkia flying for LY under LY-flight-code ?


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...
Aeroflot May Lose 787 Delivery Slots posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:07:24 by PanAm_DC10
DUS To Lose Slot Allocation By Judgment... posted Tue Jul 25 2006 14:49:54 by Beaucaire
Bombardier: India May Buy 400 RJs By 2025 posted Thu Apr 27 2006 12:56:54 by 777ER
Northwest May Lose KLM Link posted Mon Jul 18 2005 11:56:35 by Squirrel83
Three W. Va. Airports May Lose All Service posted Wed Mar 23 2005 17:45:31 by MAH4546
Small Airports May Lose Service...... posted Tue Mar 15 2005 19:06:30 by MainRunway
Denver May Loose Its Status As The #5 Airport posted Wed Oct 13 2004 16:48:58 by Bluef9A320
BWI May Lose Army Contract posted Wed Mar 31 2004 02:48:06 by All4BWI
Arkia 753 May Have Been Saved By Missile Deterrent posted Fri Nov 29 2002 17:31:03 by Singapore_Air
ATW: A350 EIS May Be Delayed By A380 Problems posted Fri Sep 29 2006 08:07:29 by Leelaw