Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF LAX-LHR?  
User currently offlineJoemugg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7360 times:

How do you feel about this new routing? I think it's strange. Isn't this market already served to the nth degree? How much could AF possibly make on such an audacious route? If I was flying to England I'd fly BA or United (from LAX.) If I was flying to India, I'd fly BA or Lufthansa, both requiring stopovers. If I were flying to Asia I'd fly SA or Malaysian. I wouldn't fly AF to the UK. I'd fly AF to CDG or perhaps to Africa.

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6303 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7344 times:

Ok...why? If they're a good airline, they're a good airline. If they have good fares, they have good fares. I've flown Air India from the US to UK when I was in college because they were cheap.

Also, think about frequent fliers...Star Alliance has UA, Oneworld has BA...what about SkyTeam? AF can capture the LAX based Skyteam folks.


User currently offlineJoemugg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7320 times:

Skyteam, true. I'm also assuming that the flight continues on to CDG. If it returned directly to LAX that would be weird. Perhaps I'm a purist.

User currently offlineMisbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7310 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Reply 2):
I'm also assuming that the flight continues on to CDG

Nope, the flight returns to LHR. The aircraft will do CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG rotations.

And it's a joint op with DL, so DL's FF base in LAX has a non-stop to the UK now. Not a bad idea in principle - they're starting to try what KL+NW do - but let's see how well it works.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7302 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Reply 2):
Skyteam, true. I'm also assuming that the flight continues on to CDG.

actually, it doesn't...  Wink the routing of the plane (and crew with the appropriate stopovers, AFAIK) is CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24870 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7300 times:

Suggest you read through the many previous threads about AF up coming LHR-LAX plans.
LHR-LAX On Air France For £279! (by Arsenal@LHR Jan 25 2008 in Civil Aviation)
Delta To Offer LAX-LHR On AF (by ERJ170 Dec 11 2007 in Civil Aviation)
LA Times Article On AF's LAX-LHR Plans (by Charles79 Oct 18 2007 in Civil Aviation)
AF/DL LHR-LAX For 9 LHR - USA City Pairs 2008 (by BP1 Oct 16 2007 in Civil Aviation)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJoemugg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7196 times:



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
Suggest you read through the many previous threads about AF up coming LHR-LAX plans

My bad. Will research further. Though I might add it would be more feasible/marketable if this particular routing was solely in DL metal.


User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7176 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Reply 6):
Though I might add it would be more feasible/marketable if this particular routing was solely in DL metal.

eh.... why? IMHO AF's onboard experience beats DL's by almost every account - at least in Y....



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7108 times:



Quoting Misbeehavin (Reply 3):
And it's a joint op with DL, so DL's FF base in LAX has a non-stop to the UK now. Not a bad idea in principle - they're starting to try what KL+NW do - but let's see how well it works.

It allows all the Sky Team members to code share a flight from LAX-LHR. None of the US Sky Team members had a spare 777 they could allocate to the flight. It just adds another AF 777 to be handled at LAX every day.


User currently offlineMisbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7035 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 7):
eh.... why? IMHO AF's onboard experience beats DL's by almost every account - at least in Y....

Agreed! Although, I think DL is much better overall in J.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6982 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 7):
at least in Y....

The 777s are going 10Y, so not sure that will be true forever. At least if you are big.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6900 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):

The 777s are going 10Y, so not sure that will be true forever. At least if you are big.

on LAX-LHR, AF will use a 777-200ER, and I thought all these were 9Y?


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6862 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
If I was flying to England I'd fly BA or United (from LAX.)

If it were me, I'd go NZ, VS, BA, AF, then the American carriers.


User currently offlineLHRBFSTrident From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 655 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6862 times:

I will try and dig up the source but I read a table that showed the top 5 routes in terms of pax numbers ex-LHR.

LAX came in at number 5... New York was number 1 and the others inbetween were European routes

With those kinds of pax numbers, the SkyTeam FFP connection, strong premium cabin O&D and a great onboard product, AF isn't so stupid to start this route.

IIRC, during the 1990s when BA flew LHR-LAX x2 daily the destination flightdeck crew briefing sheet stated it was their 'second most-profitable' route (after JNB)...

Also - their service offers a great late afternoon departure ex-LHR which I am always looking for when returning from UK - that basically gives an extra useful day in the UK, that on flights departing earlier in the day ends up being breakfast and a trip to the airport with virtually zero productive time...



Next up: LAX-LHR NZ002 Y SkyCouch! LHR-LAX NZ001 Y
User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6844 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
The 777s are going 10Y, so not sure that will be true forever. At least if you are big.

you are right, unfortunately.... right now, I avoid the 77W on AF for that exact reason, which is possible as long as only one aircraft type is affected.... will see what the future brings...

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11):
on LAX-LHR, AF will use a 777-200ER, and I thought all these were 9Y?

they are. at least until further notice...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6836 times:



Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 14):
they are. at least until further notice...

That's the key. It seems AF will eventually make them all 10Y, but who knows?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6836 times:



Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 12):
If it were me, I'd go NZ, VS, BA, AF, then the American carriers.

Is there a reason why NZ is so much more expensive compared to all those other carriers?


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

As a teacher in accounting I use this example to explain key factor anaylsis. If you have limited number of slots then you will give priority to routes which give the most ABSOLUTE gross profit (not percentage gross profit). Using that particular slot to fly to Paris might yield 10% gross profit on an average fare of £200. If they fly to Los Angleses they might make just 5% gross profit but the average fare is probabley over £600. So flying to Los Angleses yields £30 gross profit compared to just £20 gross profit. And this is before considering capacity - I have assumed they use the same plane size.

If there was no limit to the number of slots then they would server BOTH routes (and all routes that yield positve gross profit) but if it is EITHER Paris OR Los Angeles then its is going to be Los Angeles because of the higher gross profit.

Obviously there are factors such as plane utilization but the basic principle remains!


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6488 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
How much could AF possibly make on such an audacious route?

Audacious is a strong word - can you back it up?

Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
I'd



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
I'd



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
I'd



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
I'd

However this route doesn't just cater for you, it caters for a whole market.

Rule changes mean AF can do this, just like Openskies can do the same from CDG. Whilst Openskies are not ready yet, AF are. They want to get in there as the trend setters, and of course to give their customers more options. Also AF are using regular planes, which keeps economy passengers happy with extra choice, not just premium pax.

Quoting Joemugg (Reply 2):
If it returned directly to LAX that would be weird. Perhaps I'm a purist.

Have you read the regulation changes?


User currently offlineBasrabob From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6234 times:

I would go so far as to say that AF have been the most far-sighted of the EU carriers , they were the first of the EU carriers to amalgamate with another carrier . And they have stolen a march on the rest of the EU carriers with this flight from LHR - LAX . Now how it will play , will of course be very interesting . It will only be a matter of time before you get LH piling and doing the same thing .....now the specific route they would pick would be fascinating as they cover pretty much the same ground as BA...BA have already pitched their tents in the EU - NYC market with their open skies airline . And all of them are trying the same thing . Namely pinching the home based carriers traffic ....AF & BA have approached it in entirely different ways , AF have just made it another part of their mainline route structure whereas BA have launched an airline within an airline - basically chasing the premium passenger . So only time will tell which is the correct business model . And at the end of the day , the customer will decide . My money is very much against the BA open-skies airline still flying in 5 years time , it will go the way of "GO" , it will quietly be shut down or merged with another carrier .

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6210 times:



Quoting Basrabob (Reply 19):
I would go so far as to say that AF have been the most far-sighted of the EU carriers , they were the first of the EU carriers to amalgamate with another carrier . And they have stolen a march on the rest of the EU carriers with this flight from LHR - LAX .

And they bought the 77W while no one else in the EU has (okay, now KL, but that's AF's decision). They also switched to the 777 even after buying a fleet of A340s because they realized twins are the way. They also limited their VLA size, and have decided to replace all with A380s. They also launched the 777F. The also started premium services to oil fields with A320 series aircraft.

AF is a really far-sighted airline and their decisions seem to be turning out positive for them.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3764 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6168 times:



Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11):
on LAX-LHR, AF will use a 777-200ER, and I thought all these were 9Y?

They are. AFAIK, AF only has 10 abreast in Y on the 777-300ERs that serve leisure markets, ie. not all 777-300ERs have 10 abreast seating in Y. Still, if they don't lose PAX over the configuration, I don't see why they wouldn't go EK and configure all their 777s with 10 abreast seating.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6715 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6140 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
If I was flying to England I'd fly BA or United (from LAX.)

Why not AC via YYZ? Or Delta via ATL? Or Continental via EWR?

Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
If I was flying to India, I'd fly BA or Lufthansa, both requiring stopovers.

Or AF via CDG or KL via AMS. Or whatever? What's more important - fares, service, convenience or "geographic preferences"?

Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
If I were flying to Asia I'd fly SA or Malaysian.

If they fly you where you need to go...btw, SA is South African Airways.

Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
I wouldn't fly AF to the UK. I'd fly AF to CDG or perhaps to Africa.

So you wouldn't fly AF even if it offered a better fare? Why only to CDG or Africa? Ever checked AF's network?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
And they bought the 77W while no one else in the EU has (okay, now KL, but that's AF's decision).

Probably because other EU 772ER operators simply haven't required the 77W (yet) for a number of different reasons? AF already had a large 772ER fleet and it was a logic choice to add 77Ws in order to expand and replace older aircraft. It's all about demand.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6104 times:



Quoting Joemugg (Thread starter):
How do you feel about this new routing? I think it's strange. Isn't this market already served to the nth degree?

It will never work financially and dont be surprised if AF axes it before it starts and blames high fuel prices. There isnt a large enough base of Skyteam FF in LAX to make this work without getting some LHR originating traffic


User currently offlineSpeedbird10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6019 times:

Even thought it seems strange, the whole EU-US Open Skies concept might actually be quite useful as more airlines compete to see who can offer the lowest price. I've been on airfrance.com quite a few times and have noticed they are offering ridiculously low prices on the flight as well as more miles. Have any other airlines announced new OpenSkies flights? I'd be very interested to know,

25 SRT75 : The route is being fairly heavily marketed by AF (at least here in Los Angeles). Looks like they are opening with very discounted Y fares to fill up t
26 PurpleBox : Well it starts on Sunday - and there will be plently of LHR originating traffic as it's been very heavily promoted here in the UK - I'm on the flight
27 Pgtravel : SkyTeam really does appear to be making a run on LAX. First DL built up the LAX mini-hub. Now this summer we'll see both LHR-LAX on AF as well as FCO-
28 Commavia : Yeah - while SkyTeam may be making a concerted push into LAX, the market response - thus far - has been less than inspiring. Much of Delta's LAX expa
29 Post contains images Misbeehavin : Yeah true, but that's because it's driven by folks flying to LHR from New Zealand for the most part; it's not an O&D reliant route, like AF's will be
30 LACA773 : I didn't realize KL is going to fly 2X daily on LAX-AMS. I know the midday flight last summer didn't do all the well.
31 Pgtravel : Oops, you might be right. I may have jumped the gun on this one. I don't actually see it in the system right now, though I thought I had seen it befo
32 Viscount724 : AF has much better service than UA on longhaul flights, and LAX-LHR- is a major high-yield market. AF has always had a strong reputation for high qua
33 PlaneHunter : Connections are still widely accepted if the price is right. And I wasn't specifically referring to LHR, but "England" and the "BA/UA-only-options" s
34 B707forever : DL's far better in J than AF. Roomier seats, more comfortable cabins and strangely enough, I've even had better meals on DL over the water over AF. O
35 WunalaYann : Nothing against AF but then again, of all the mainstream airlines offering first class, which one(s) is(are) not excellent?
36 Post contains images DeltaL1011man : I would say there are some that make money or DL would cut them. give it time. For DL at least I wouldn't count on much more LHR. I can see ATL-LHR 2
37 BP1 : Once the AF flight starts up, there will be the following carriers on LAX-LHR 1. British Airways 2. Virgin Atlantic 3. Air New Zealand 4. Air France 5
38 Joemugg : This is my point: consumer perception. Market feasibility/research/Sky Team alliance are all logical and prudent concerns; however, at the end of the
39 Misbeehavin : I think it's more like 10 / day, with AF, AA, NZ = 1, UA, VS = 2, BA = 3.
40 UAL777UK : As I have said before, I will give AF a year on this route then they will pull it, they are up against a shed load of competition here, well establish
41 Pgtravel : Nah, it's at-risk flying for ExpressJet, so unless they have a better place to put those planes, they'll probably keep flying for DL unless it gets t
42 VV701 : Seats on offer by route out of LHR in the current (winter) timetable are, in a typical week: New York 102,141 Dublin 53,051 Amsterdam 52,932 Paris 49
43 SunriseValley : and NZ or NZ NZ beats them both. they can get the extra because of their superior product.
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...
Delta To Offer LAX-LHR On AF posted Tue Dec 11 2007 04:07:14 by ERJ170
AF/DL LHR-LAX For 9 LHR - USA City Pairs 2008 posted Tue Oct 16 2007 06:33:26 by BP1
AA 136 LAX-LHR Dirverted To JFK July 12 posted Thu Jul 12 2007 13:15:55 by LTBEWR
AA's Flagship Service LAX-LHR posted Wed Feb 21 2007 22:48:51 by Cleared2Land4
Any Chance Of VS Doing SYD-LAX-LHR? posted Mon Feb 5 2007 05:21:26 by Ctang
NZ2 LAX-LHR Cancelled Today posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:07:57 by SunriseValley
BA282 LAX-LHR 09/23/06 posted Sun Sep 24 2006 09:29:08 by BALAX
BA Loads LAX - LHR - LAX posted Fri Sep 1 2006 00:53:11 by IFEMaster
United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:03:19 by N1120A
UA Flight LAX-LHR Diverted To BOS-security 7/26 posted Tue Jul 26 2005 13:38:12 by LTBEWR