Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The End Of The AZ MXP Hub?  
User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5223 times:

WHen AZ announced that it would be downgrading its hub to just a quasi-type focus city, I was really shocked. Although I have no real personal attachment to AZ or have never been on them, I liked their MXP hub. I love the Lombardianregion and Milan especially and thought that the MXP hub was very beneficial as it served an economically wealthy area and it was a greatnconnecting hub with an O&D business market. But why did it suddenly end? Now they only have three long-haul flights to GRU, NRT and JFK. And, the rest of their flights are kind of scattered about Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa. It kind of seems pointless to create more of an O&D market in a low O&D city. MXP was the main hubnfor AZ as I think it should be. Rome maybe the biggest city in Italy, but it really isn't the most important. FCO doesn't serve as a great hub. There isn't that much gate space and the INTL terminal is already shared by too many airlines. And yes, many AZ planes were parked at bus gates at MXP, but it still was a huge airport with plenty of space.

nI know that basically everything comes down to money, so was the MXP hub not profitable? Does AZ now have too many planes as they cut many of their routes from their biggest hub? How does this affect businessnin the MXP area and is it a big blow for connecting travel between other continents and other continents or other continents and Europe? Inknow AZ is doing horribly and to top it all off Spinettanpulled out, so I really just don't get why they would just drop a hubnand especially one like MXP. Italy really only has two carriers, and Air One is not an international flag carrier. Although Italy is part ofnthe Schengen and EU, it still is its own country and isn't it a little dangerous to just start making huge changes to a city's air service which has had a stable hub for decades? If you think of Italian air service to be part of Europe as a whole, the closing of an MXP hub is not a big deal. It is kind of like the annihilation of Skybus's CMH hub or the closing of AA's Raleigh hub on a greater scale (as MXP is much more important as a city than Raleigh). The industry just moves on and passengers find other alternatives like connecting through otherncities. But, if you think of Italian air service just comprising Italy, then it is a huge deal as MXP was the most important connecting city in the country and now, FCO is the only hub in the country. So, pleasenshare your opinions and knowledge of these issues and I would love to know really why this happened.

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5141 times:

Just like Montreal in the 80s and 90s, with Mirabel vs Dorval, Linate is the problem. Passengers destined from Milan want to land in Linate. Alitalia wanted to feed their intercontinental stuff at MXP with domestic Italy frequencies, and lost a lot of money on these services, as they would get connecting pax, while the local pax were destined for Linate. Prato (ex-chairman) said that the feeders would come in full in one direction, and be empty in the other...and to add, connecting pax are generally lower-yielding than local pax.

From a demand perspective, Rome is the market. If we look at the proportion of international service to Rome vs Milan, this really tells the story. Carriers such as Cathay/Singapore/USAirways/AIr Canada are all flying to Rome, and not to Milan.

The Rome advantage is that its centrally located in Italy, so you get the best of both worlds on the domestic services.. connection and local pax focus. Rome is a natural demand market. Its only of the world's biggest tourist centers, and you get a very strategically located hub for Southern Europe, North Africa, North Middle East, and all of Italy.

If Milan had one mega consolidated airport, it would have likely kept its hub status. Unfortunately, as per the numerous quotes from Alitalia executives, Milan was the bulk of their loss, especially intra-Italy and to a lesser extent, intra-europe.


User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5067 times:

Malpensa having masses of space? I take it you mean apron and ramp space as the terminals are cramped with very few facilities for eating and shopping. MXP stank!

User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4978 times:



Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 1):
Just like Montreal in the 80s and 90s, with Mirabel vs Dorval, Linate is the problem.

But the difference is, Montreal is not Milan. Although they have similar populations, Milan has a huge urban area and is concidered one of the most important cities in the world. Also, YUL was already a sizable airport and could be expanded. LIN is not fit to be an intercontinental hub. Mirabel was also much farther away than MXP and it was too grand in scale to begin with. When I first really learned about Mirabel, I thought, "how could anybody ever screw up this badly?" I always thought that AZ was failing due to the fact that they only profited on domestic services, but they still had a market for global services as well.

I understand when you say that MXP failed because local pax would not fly to it. They had to have domestic services from MXP due to far away pax, but those flights were empty while LIN flights were profitable. But, isn't it more of an inconvenience for Milan area pax to have to find connecting flights to somewhere else in Europe and then journey on to their final destination? MXP just seems like the perfect hub to have and for some reason I really liked the AZ MXP hub. What is the point of just keeping some flights at MXP? Sure, they may be profitable, but without hub status, isn't it an all or nothing matter when regarding to PAX. Since Italy really isn't its own country when speaking in terms of commercial aviation, then it is just a loss of a hub. But to disrupt service like that from the major hub in the country, it seems like a big deal. Maybe now that even more so, European aviation seems so free, there can be other attempts to take over Alitalia so it will mold with the other airline's services/hubs in Europe. I thought KL should have taken it over from the start in the 90's.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4814 times:

At the end of the day, Alitalia had to make tough choices. Giving up the Milan market is not easy and im sure it required a lot of analysis.

Consolidation of Alitalia into central hub, where both connecting and domestic service passengers are inter-mingled on the same flights is more profitable, than the dual airport scenario at Malpensa.

Alitalia is reducing Malpensa and increasing Linate services, and I cant see how this is not a more profitable scenario, then to have feeders with the sole intention of connecting to inter-continental, without the local pax.

Poor planning, and lack of strategic vision, killed the Milan-Malpensa hub.


User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2181 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4789 times:



Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 1):
Carriers such as Cathay/Singapore/USAirways/AIr Canada are all flying to Rome, and not to Milan.

Mark,

Singapore and US Airways both fly to Milan and Rome.


User currently offlineEgcarter From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4785 times:

Malpensa is horribly inconvenient to the Greater Milan area, as well. It's nearly in Switzerland! That's why everyone wants to go to Linate. Just doesn't work as a big international airport very well. It's a similar predicament that Dulles went through for decades as the masses wished to use the far more convenient National Airport.

User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4651 times:



Quoting Runway23 (Reply 5):

Singapore and US Airways both fly to Milan and Rome.

Something struck me as funny about when he said that too. I guess that's why.


User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4629 times:

Ok shall we compile a list of international carriers that fly to Rome, and not Milan?.. or at the same time, determine the amount of service to Rome vs Milan from international points?

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

I think the main problem is that an airline of this size, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, can not afford more than one hub, everything else is nonsense. Much bigger airlines, which are going very well, have only one (BA: London), two (AF/KL: Paris and AMS) or three (LH/LX: FRA, MUC and ZRH). Actually, regarding the economic power of the region, MXP would be the better hub than FCO. But this is politics: the capital must be the hub.

User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2870 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4534 times:



Quoting Egcarter (Reply 6):
Malpensa is horribly inconvenient to the Greater Milan area, as well. It's nearly in Switzerland! That's why everyone wants to go to Linate. Just doesn't work as a big international airport very well.

Exactly. All O/D traffic wants to go to LIN, connecting traffic must go through MXP, so you have a bit of a "split-personality" operation there, where O/D and hub pax don't mix well and you end up having to serve both airports with considerably lower load factors than you would with one single airport. Rome does not have that problem, as CIA isn't popular with traditional carriers (due to its inconvenient landside links).



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4517 times:



Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 9):
I think the main problem is that an airline of this size, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, can not afford more than one hub, everything else is nonsense. Much bigger airlines, which are going very well, have only one (BA: London), two (AF/KL: Paris and AMS) or three (LH/LX: FRA, MUC and ZRH). Actually, regarding the economic power of the region, MXP would be the better hub than FCO. But this is politics: the capital must be the hub.

It is actually more about geography and space. France is set up where there would be no need for another hub besides Paris. That is why you can't think about each country. It is like me saying United should have a hub in Peoria (even though I know UA has hubs in other states) Think of it more as the EU and Schengen and less of Italy. A big question I have is, if MXP was so unprofitable, then why was it the bigger and more dominant hub up until a couple of months ago? I always liked how MXP was the hub as it showed that not all airlines outside of the US have to have hubs in their capital city and only their capital city. Italy is set up where it has two major cities with airports that can accommodate hubs, something very rare in Europe besides Germany. AF wouldn't have a hub in any other city as in general, airports serving a lot of traffic in Europe have no more than 10-15 gates and hub airports don't have that much more than that (ex. VIE). I think it is good that now the Big Four in Europe are building true hub airports, but I always thought AZ was an innovator in Europe as it pioneered this type of airport long before many other airlines/countries did so. Also, you really cannot count BA as they virtually had no freedom to do anything although they already had a very established network. They had to split their hub between two cities and although London has the means to have an airline be hubbed at two airports in the same city, it just doesn't work for an airline and kind of destroys the brand in a way. Also, although MAN could be a hub I guess for BA (and it was for cityline or whatever they called it), again, it does not have the airport and does not have the means. Unfortunately, in Europe airlines just can't go and create CVG's or DFW's.


User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2181 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4481 times:



Quoting AFKLMLHLX (Reply 11):
how MXP was the hub as it showed that not all airlines outside of the US have to have hubs in their capital city and only their capital city

You really can't compare Europe to North America. Canada/US are both way larger countries distance wise than any country in Europe. Similarly, because of those distances your capital in Europe is more likely to be central (or at least distance wise closer to your largest city or an important business centre). Compare the distances from Washington DC to Los Angeles or Ottawa to Vancouver and you will get the idea why you need multiple hubs.

Besides, the capital city does not always have a hub or warrant one. Take Bern in Switzerland or Berlin in Germany as examples. The trend has been for fewer hubs not more, with a number of them vanishing over the years (eg. LGW/MAN, GVA, BCN, and now MXP).

Quoting AFKLMLHLX (Reply 11):
Unfortunately, in Europe airlines just can't go and create CVG's or DFW's.

There also, there is a lesser density of hubs per given mile in the USA/Canada than in Europe. Also bear in mind that a greater percentage of the population in North America lives in metro areas as opposed to rural areas in Europe, even though there is a continual shift.

Take CVG Metro it has a population of 2.2 million people. With CLE, both are the smallest metro areas for American hubs yet make up for the fact because of their good location.
DFW Metro has a population of 6 million.

Add in the fact that Americans travel way more than an average European and you see why the hubs have survived up to now, although for how long that is another question.


User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

I read on wikipedia that MXP had been set up in the event of a possible merger with KLM. Since now they want to merge with them it seems kind of ironic.


2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4397 times:

I came across this from a YahooGroup Posting.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/busines...to_establish_hub_at_milan_airport/

9W interested using MXP as a secondary hub along with BRU.



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4354 times:



Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 14):

9W interested using MXP as a secondary hub along with BRU.

BOM/DEL-MXP-LAX are the likely routes. I suspect MXP will provide better O&D potential than BRU has done so far for 9W.


User currently offlineRafabozzolla From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

It may not be forgotten though that, originally, the plan was for LIN to keep only the AZ FCO shuttle. Other European airlines complained to the EU and the European Commission ruled that the Italian Gov opened LIN to other EU carriers, splitting traffic and ruining the hub potential for MXP (because AZ was forced to offer LIN Europe and LIN Italy flights in order not lo loose local Milan traffic).

If Italy wanted for it to work they would have closed LIN like they did with old Munich airport.

Another problem for me was the train link to Cadorna and not Centrale station. Though very centrally located (even more so than Centrale), Cadorna belongs to Ferrovienord and is not connected to the Italian rail network so, someone from, say Verona or Turin or (to close to fly to MXP), did not have a direct train option to get to MXP, and used other European hubs instead.


User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4283 times:



Quoting Runway23 (Reply 12):

There also, there is a lesser density of hubs per given mile in the USA/Canada than in Europe. Also bear in mind that a greater percentage of the population in North America lives in metro areas as opposed to rural areas in Europe, even though there is a continual shift.

That is completely wrong! If anything, Western Europe is almost like a big metropolitan area in itself. This might be wrong, but I was watching a video in Italian class and it said how 98% of Italy lives in urban areas. I think that number is wrong, but for a country of 45 million, they pack a lot of people in. Europe has 700 million people living in an area 1/3 of the size of the US. You just think of big metropolitan areas but don't realize that the HUGE areas outside make up a ton of the population. There is so little true rural area in Europe that you can't even make a statement like that. One of the reasons why I like Europe is how it is so developed and yet it hasn't turned into the hellhole much of the US/Canada are.

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 12):


Add in the fact that Americans travel way more than an average European and you see why the hubs have survived up to now, although for how long that is another question.

Are you kidding me? One of the biggest stereotypes of Americans is the fact that most never travel. 30% of Americans don't even have a passport and domestic travel isn't done that frequently either. I was just talking to my uncle about his friend who lives in Ex-en-Provence who is going to Rome with his wife this weekend just for a weekend getaway. In Europe, people travel much more domesticly (EU) and internationally. Geneva has a metro pop. of 700,000 and it draws longhaul flights from all over the world. It shows how important Geneva is. Also, think about how many airports there are in Europe which have flights to all over the world. In the US, there are maybe 15. Most of the US cities really have little importance to them, however, they do have the means for good hubs. Most airports can be built on a lot of space which is a luxury most European airports cannot have. However, if you notice, and you can notice this just by going on to wikipedia, any given commercial European airport has a s**tload of commercial airline traffic and yet these airports are so small! This works for non-hub travel as most planes use bus gates and many flights are done by charter airlines so they are more infrequent. However, hubs need the type of set-up that space offers. This is why one has to think of European air travel as European and not specific to the country as it is a common travel area.

The US has a bunch of big airlines who have huge hubs at airports in cities of little or no importance, but it is because they are good as a connecting city. However, if you notice, most flights are domestic and served by RJ's which carry little passengers. In Europe, most flights are served by airplanes no smaller A320's or 737's. So, I can understand if you can contest the fact that Europeans don't travel more than Americans (which I would still disagree with), but to say that they travel less is not really true. The European skies are much busier than the skies over the US.


User currently offlineConnector4you From Canada, joined May 2001, 932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

I don’t really think that Linate is Malpensa’s big problem. After all Linate is just a convenient domestic and intra-European O&D airport.

In addition to all that Linate has to offer, Malpensa - by its geographical position and size - it’s a great hub for intercontinental connections. I have a filling that AF-KLM’s master-plan to suddenly confine AZ’s hub activity at Rome could have secretly envisioned its own metal routes and connections out of Milan Malpensa.

That being said I don’t think we have to worry much about Malpensa’s future, after all was just Alitalia’s inability to take advantage of this great location. Lots of airlines have their eyes on Malpensa as we speak. FR’s thinking rabbits chewed-over Malpensa’s merit quickly and had an offer for them the very moment Alitalia’s plans were revealed. Although Malpensa was still in shock and vulnerable over Alitalia’s intentions, Ryanair’s opportunistic offer (I mean gamble) came extremely short (what a surprise)

Once Alitalia’s faith is decided, expect to hear more about Malpensa, especially now with the EU-US open sky agreement in effect


User currently offlineAFKLMLHLX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4211 times:

I have one big question. MXP is HUGE, so why is there hardly any gate space? It is not like the area surrouding is that built up either. I know it is a European trend to have a million airlines flying out of an airport with ten gates, but why don't they make MXP into a MUC or a CDG or an AMS? Also, why do EU airlines keep wanting to fly routes out of their hubs just to fly point-to-point service? The European hub market really isn't expandable and why don't airlines concolidate and become really big powers? I just don't get what the point of the Open-Skies agreement is for European airlines. It opens up Heathrow and abolishes the Shannon Stopover but why would EU airlines just want to start flying routes like LHR-LAX (AF)? Why not take over an airline like AZ and become a Pan-European airline. I know that some airlines have done that in Europe like LH-LX and AF-KLM, but they are kind of quasi-merged airlines as they truely are not one airline. I think BA should go for IB or AZ. There are too many airlines in Europe, but there are a scarsity or legacies. Still, MXP is a great airport for an international hub. I just don't see how FCO could be a truely great hub.

User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4182 times:

FLYYUL, your theory about MXP vs LIN does not stand... prime examples are LHR and CDG.
Why AZ has moved everything to FCO? politics

MXP is 500km closer to any destination in Europe and though it's not the best base for a domestic market, it's the best one for the international/European market. There's no much domestic movement in Italy anyway, most being immigrants coming back to their homeland or tourists visiting.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 1):
Carriers such as Cathay/Singapore/USAirways/AIr Canada are all flying to Rome, and not to Milan.

Since when is competition welcome? Why does it matter to compare two airports the way you did?

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 1):
and to add, connecting pax are generally lower-yielding than local pax.

Are you serious? FCO pax are high yielding?

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 9):
I think the main problem is that an airline of this size, which is on the verge of bankruptcy, can not afford more than one hub, everything else is nonsense. Much bigger airlines, which are going very well, have only one (BA: London), two (AF/KL: Paris and AMS) or three (LH/LX: FRA, MUC and ZRH). Actually, regarding the economic power of the region, MXP would be the better hub than FCO. But this is politics: the capital must be the hub.

This sums it up pretty well.

The ultimate example that proves that a good airport needs to be located at the economical centre of a country is FRA.

I think that, seen the geography of Italy, it would have been best to locate the domestic hub of AZ in FCO (seen that Itly's bureaucracy is located there) and to bring the international hub to MXP.

[Edited 2008-04-07 20:32:31]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4161 times:



Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 1):
Carriers such as Cathay/Singapore/USAirways/AIr Canada are all flying to Rome, and not to Milan.

SQ operate 14x weekly flights in MXP (7x from SIN and 7x from BCN) and 4x weekly into FCO.

That MXP is almost in Switzerland was not the reason. Just as DEN is almost in Wyoming and still works as a hub for UA.

Quoting ZRH (Reply 9):
But this is politics: the capital must be the hub.

 checkmark  AZ are not run as a business; they are run for the benefit of the political elite. The right business decision would have been to move all hub operations from FCO to MXP, but the politicians wouldn't allow it because it would not be convenient for them personally.


User currently offlineJouy31 From France, joined May 2003, 447 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

I have enjoyed flying AZ in the past, and have connected through FCO and MXP. Although the connections through MXP were somewhat shorter, due to the respective geographic locations of both airports, connecting through MXP has usually been very bad, due to the weather conditions. I have missed connections several times and been stranded at MXP for the night twice, as my incoming flight was two hours late and the last flight to my destination had left. In addition, although there were rooms available at the nearby Crowne Plaza (10mn by bus), AZ wanted me to take a bus, 1 hour later, that would reach a distant hotel at around midnight, and have me come back for an early 7:00 AM flight. Not the best memories of connecting through MXP.

User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2870 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4064 times:



Quoting AFKLMLHLX (Reply 17):
Ex-en-Provence

It's actually Aix-en-Provence, but I see what you link with the region is Big grin

Quoting AFKLMLHLX (Reply 19):
Also, why do EU airlines keep wanting to fly routes out of their hubs just to fly point-to-point service?

Not all of them do. Especially the LCCs are very decentralized, think FR or U2. I think Malev at some point operated ATH-DUB to increase a/c utilisation but I'm not sure if they still do.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineFLYYUL From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3974 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 20):



Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
FLYYUL, your theory about MXP vs LIN does not stand... prime examples are LHR and CDG.
Why AZ has moved everything to FCO? politics

MXP is 500km closer to any destination in Europe and though it's not the best base for a domestic market, it's the best one for the international/European market. There's no much domestic movement in Italy anyway, most being immigrants coming back to their homeland or tourists visiting.

My theory is more than substantiated, thank you very much. Clearly you are unaware that MOST of Alitalia's losses are domestic flights to MXP, as had MINIMAL local traffic. Milan-Malpensa is NOT an effective local market airport, especially with Linate in the city.

Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
Are you serious? FCO pax are high yielding?

Reading is an art. What I said is that transfer passengers connecting to intercontinental services are usually LOW-YIELDING PAX. Because the value of the ticket is pro-rated over a domestic segment, which isnt substantial revenue.

You may think that Alitalia's management is completely incompetent, but they have done their homework.. and they know how this company can minimize losses, and turn around their network.

I find it regrettable that the armchair airliners.net CEO thinks he knows best.


25 NCB : I guess that you didn't read as you should. Read my last sentence, it says: A domestic hub doesn't necessarily need to be built at the same airport a
26 AFKLMLHLX : I get what you mean but AZ decided to keep the NRT-MXP flight as it is very profitable so that wouldn't be a correct example. A better one is HKG, a
27 Aisak : It think that passenger will choose among AZ xxx-FCO-LIN, AF xxx-CDG-LIN, LH xxx-FRA-LIN, etc depending on price, time and personal preference of car
28 NCB : Oh well I could have taken any other route. AF-KLM wants to move NRT-MXP to FCO as well if they take-over. You know why Air One was rejected anyway?
29 Thegooddoctor : ...cramped? True. Stank? I seem to remember a certain terminal at LHR that both stank and made me feel like a lab rate in a windowless maze... MXP wa
30 NCB : I know this is a bit complicated. The point is, if AZ need to compete against other airlines flying into Milan, they need to fly transcon out of Mila
31 Orion737 : MXP wasnt busy, it had no shops, no eating places, no bars, Probably the worst selcetion of airport facilities for an airport of its alledged size.
32 Skyduster : Whoa whoa whoa, I think you have some outdated misconceptions about Europe. Europe is a heavily urbanized continent. In some countries (like Italy, B
33 AFKLMLHLX : And to expand on this, Europe is much more dynamic than the US with high concentrations of immigrants from abroad and mixings of peoples from differe
34 AirbusA6 : The problem for Italy, is that it is a relatively recent country, with no one dominant city, in the way London, Paris, Moscow, Madrid etc are to their
35 767Lover : What in the world are you smoking? NYC The Grand Canyon Washington, D.C. Charleston Orlando/Universal Studios Miami/South Beach Key West New Orleans
36 AFKLMLHLX : But it's still not like Europe. I have been to all of those places minus four or so, and I can tell you that although I have enjoyed going to each, t
37 Okapi : I may not agree. The real trouble with Italy lies in Rome : it's been there, trying to rule the world for the past 2,000 years or so. Read about poli
38 Post contains links 767Lover : http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/arti...200803/20080312/article_351817.htm This article provides a lot of the reasons. * Poor location and difficult to
39 Skyduster : I'm no expert on the economic reasoning behind AZ's decision to move its international hub from MXP to FCO, but I do know that there are a few misconc
40 Sflaflight : And that is.... and will remain to be until the system is changed Italy's problem. Trying to run Italy as a centralized republic like France, Sweden,
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...
HUB And Spoke System, The End Is Near? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 04:38:43 by IAHFLYER
NW+Delta: End Of The Memphis Hub posted Sun Jan 14 2007 16:49:36 by David31998
Is The End Of AA's STL Hub Close? posted Wed Apr 2 2003 18:44:50 by Cody
Reasons For The Closure Of NWA's BOS Hub? posted Tue Apr 1 2008 18:03:57 by KingAir200
The End Of TAM Mercosur... Goodbye PZ posted Sun Mar 30 2008 20:39:41 by PZ
Rumour: Is It The End Of Bmibaby? posted Tue Mar 18 2008 13:45:45 by Kaitak
The End Of Skyway Airlines 328Jet... posted Tue Feb 26 2008 09:38:35 by Markjs
The End Of Old Soviet Aircrafts In Ukraine? posted Wed Feb 13 2008 04:43:50 by SIBILLE
Why Is The 757 The Etops Narrowbody Of Choice? posted Thu Feb 7 2008 07:23:55 by Manfredj
Westjet Fleet, Why No 4's In The Fleet Number? posted Tue Jan 29 2008 16:01:05 by AC_B777