Jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15718 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Doesn't surprise me too much. Seemed like a good airline from the trip reports I've read but simply no need for it. You have plenty of options from both AMS and CDG to the US. Unless they were offering some great fares there was no way it was going to do too well.
All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 12107 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15698 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 2): So, in the end the open skies agreement between the EU and the US changes nothing...
Pretty much, yep.
As many predicted from the outset, the whole experiment with European national airlines - with decades and decades of national identity built up in them - flying between the U.S. and another European county simple has not worked out. The two attempts thus far - BA with OpenSkies and AF with LAX-LHR - have both been failures.
The truth is that the real benefit of OpenSkies comes not from, say, Lufthansa being able to fly from Vienna to JFK, but from Lufthansa being able to acquire Austrian, and manage the overall Lufthansa-Austrian network, and have Austrian continue flying Vienna-JFK without losing its traffic rights.
The U.S.-Europe market is become more and more dominated by a few larger, stronger networks built around a few core European mega-carriers. But that doesn't mean that said mega-carriers necessarily need to fly from the U.S. to the hub airports of other competing mega-carriers that have more flights, more capacity, and far more brand equity in said markets.
GothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15552 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 2): So, in the end the open skies agreement between the EU and the US changes nothing...
Not sure this has as much to do with the Open Skies agreement as it does their product. OpenSkies the airline is in the same vein as Eos, MaxJet, SilverJet, and L'Avion...all of which failed long before the economy did.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2309 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15505 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 4): The truth is that the real benefit of OpenSkies comes not from, say, Lufthansa being able to fly from Vienna to JFK, but from Lufthansa being able to acquire Austrian, and manage the overall Lufthansa-Austrian network, and have Austrian continue flying Vienna-JFK without losing its traffic rights.
They could do that without any open skies agreement, if Austrian Airlines would remain registered as an Austrian company. It works fine with Swiss. Switzerland is not a part of the open skies agreement, but Swiss is still registered as a company from Switzerland.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15286 times:
Quoting GothamSpotter (Reply 5): Not sure this has as much to do with the Open Skies agreement as it does their product. OpenSkies the airline is in the same vein as Eos, MaxJet, SilverJet, and L'Avion...all of which failed long before the economy did.
I've been pondering about what the posters comment had specifically to do with the thread, together with the subsequent 'answer' which I failed to validly comprehend, but was reluctant to ask in case I was looking at it from a completely incorrect viewpoint. Thanks!
Hawaiian763 From Canada, joined May 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13194 times:
Openskies has really become pointless especially in this economy, with less and less people travelling business class no one is going to pay the money to enjoy the luxury of an all biz plane. I almost wonder will numbers will be like when BA begins it's LCY-JFK with an A319 in all business configuration and if it will suffer the same fate as Openskies
FYI they'll be using an A318 (two of them). I agree though, one has to wonder what the load factors will be like. Something tells me though that because LCY is close to the financial district load factors will be positive.
Cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12940 times:
You can't run an airline based on a city pair. There is simply not enough traffic there, even with big cities like Paris and New York. You need a domestic network on one side, and multiple destinations on the other side.
Now, if OpenSkies could partner with one of the domestic airlines - let's say JetBlue just to use a name. Then you have a whole domestic network feeding into JFK. Then you can develop enough business to feed the the venture.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
The whole open skies thing came far too late in the day. Its a bit like europe making the UK distribute the TV rights to football... look at setanta now!
Let's be honest about what? This has nothing whatever to do with the Open Skies Agreement between the US and EU. I fail to understand how people are confusing this with the BA Open Skies product, and which is a separate thing altogether
Quoting Hawaiian763 (Reply 14): I almost wonder will numbers will be like when BA begins it's LCY-JFK with an A319 in all business configuration and if it will suffer the same fate as Openskies
I have said on here from the start that I see absolutely no point in the routing/product, and it is nothing more than an ego thing. Ironically, I kept getting flamed as being allegedly, and completely incorrectly, anti-BA but yet interestingly many of those very same people now suddenly find it 'fashionable' to equally question it.
Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 16): Then you can develop enough business to feed the the venture.
Feeder traffic or not, I still see no valid reason for the route/product.
Mysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12172 times:
I think that Openskies, claiming to be an all-business airline, lacks something that full service carriers already have - interline agreements. You'd be surprised how many people are annoyed by the fact that you cannot throughcheck luggage on EC. It's a shame though - it is/was a great airline with a great product. I really hope BA makes something of this and I'm hoping for the best.
Cairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11990 times:
Quoting Jamotcx (Reply 10): The whole open skies thing came far too late in the day.
Over the decades US airlines tend to go bankrupt a lot while European airlines have sometimes functioned as a legitimate profit-making business and other times as national icons in service of state interests and subsidies. I don't think this process is over. My point (yes, I have one!) is that even if there had always been Open Skies, the Pan Ams and BOACS and Sabenas and TWAs would have all disorganized things, had great success, had big failures, merged, gone bankrupt, etc... so many times by now that I'm not sure we wouldn't have ended up in more or less the same place....
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 17): I have said on here from the start that I see absolutely no point in the routing/product, and it is nothing more than an ego thing.
The conventional wisdom is that every American businessman loves Heathrow. This is bulldung, like a lot of conventional wisdom! When I was officed in London we were all desperate to fly through LCY whenever possible and would have paid dearly for a US flight that was a short cab ride away instead of the cab/tube/train + Heathrow hassle we were forced to endure. Most of the big employers around Canary Wharf are either US companies (Citicorp/Bank of America/JP Morgan etc..) or firms with a big US presence (Barclays, HSBC, etc...) so there is a market there of some sort...is it big enough to justify the flight?
Of course, the economy is wobbly and this is screwing up a lot of things...but frankly I can't imagine anyone who travels a lot choosing Heathrow over LCY if given the choice....
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10746 times:
The airline never really made sense, didn't they buy assets from the same type of airline that went out of business? shouldn't that have been an indication of what was to come? The whole concept of an all business airline or a premium service airline doesn't make sense, cramming cheap coach seats into the plane is what helps make the flights somewhat profitable. So putting all premium seats into a plane doesn't really help, especially with how people use miles to book flights or upgrade their flight. BA needs to spend the money from openskies on new routes and better planes, invest in the services of the airline. It's hard to get customers if every airline is within $100 of each other on an international flight, they need to spend the money on inflight service.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10650 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8): I've been pondering about what the posters comment had specifically to do with the thread
The point is that even though the Open Skies agreement allows all EU and US airlines technically have the right to fly from any point in the EU to any point in the US, and vice versa, the new routes started due to this agreement have failed to take off.
You make a fair point that EOS, Silverjet et all also failed, which had nothing to do with the open skies agreement or the current economy. Too bad, I would have liked to give them a try some time next year. They have attractive fares.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4579 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10274 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 23): The point is that even though the Open Skies agreement allows all EU and US airlines technically have the right to fly from any point in the EU to any point in the US, and vice versa, the new routes started due to this agreement have failed to take off.
The question has to be asked whether the issues with the new routes and services (such as BA's OpenSkies, or AF's LHR-LAX) are more to do with an inherent flaw in the model of any EU airline operating from any EU port, or the economic situation.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
: Oh my! That's the second mistake I made this year. And we're only half way through.
: Good question indeed. With BA OpenSkies it looks like a flaw in the business model, as EOS, etc also didn't make it, even in better economic times. I
: I would say the economy is the greatest part of it. And, at least in the case of British, the rebranding could be part of the problem. I have no idea
: Blaming the economy for the failure of this adventure is too simply. It was bound to fail under realistic expectations, and is the responsibility of t
: I don't see why it was "bound to fail." And given the financial state that many of the world's airlines are in, I'd say the economy has a great deal
: None of these half-baked business ideas will work, do they even spend more than a 30 minute meeting planning these things? Passable idea, terrible exe
: But i bet the staff don't. I know you where just pleased that your opinion of the project may end up turning out to be correct, but in the process th
: Neither of us can ever prove our case, but - within my experience - the British Airways brand has considerable cachet. The things you list as negativ
: Yes don't know which is better myself. No doubt BA is famous the world over, they draw a huge base of regular flyers in the US away from American car
: At the time it was planned I don't see that it was idiocy. Or if it was, a lot of airlines were taking idiot pills at that time. Air France thought L
: I tend to agree. But why on earth doesn't/didn't Openskies link into oneworld network? If not actually as part of the alliance, why not allow through
: They were drinking the kool-aid, the one that tastes really good but it has arsenic in it, lol. Easy money going around. I almost got caught up mysel
: BA got badly burned in Europe about 10 years ago, think AIr liberté and Dutche BA. I guess they did not want their name to be on the side of the pla
: Not quite everyone. But you seem determined that the devastating economy has played no part in any of this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ld
: To my knowledge. neither Air Liberté nor Deutsche BA were called "British Airways". mariner
: I agree. The whole Open Skies Airlines idea, and the idea of paying an arm and a leg to buy a few slots at Heathrow, seemed like a great idea when th
: Fabulous ideas! B763 might be a tad big though, I do feel like a 752 in flat J/32-33" pitch Y would be ideal to start. Maybe it could be "BA European
: WRONG, Open Skies opened LHR which was the biggest thorn in the European service of all US airline except AA or UA. It opened the south to LHR servic
: No, I understand that if anything the recession will kill off these types of ideas that may have flourished had this not happened. But, what I was tr
: For now, yes, it appears that way. However, to say in the next 5-10 years that no successful open-sky related airline will do well is a bit premature
: Sorry, I should have been clearer, the branding of both these airline was very strongly BA, same livery, same corporate logos all that kind of thing.
: Lufthansa have Austrian do they? Hmm. Clearly, some false advertising going on. In all applicable corporate websites, it states that Lufthansa is par
: They've been advertising the heck out of Open Skies on the local NY tv markets - a very cheesy looking commercial about the one year anniversary of th
: Am i the only one to see why Privat Air can make it work and other airliners can not? Hunter
: They have been advertising a lot in the Netherlands as well. I hear a lot of radio commercials for example. True, I should have said that for now not
: I am shocked there are people on here who feel that the state of the economy has had no or little effect on OpenSkies. They fly business class passeng
: I've never disputed there was a market, but that being so is not a valid reason to justify a 'pseudo airline' within an airline just to babysit a few
: When did they do away with their Prem Econ cabin? Didn't they at one point have Economy too? Were loads/yields that bad that they had to do away with
: Valid point, very hypocritical of me. Though, Virgin said previously (2003?) that they would make a bid if the share price went below 100p. It did...
: I got to see, albeit unintentionally (people are so careless what they print and leave lying around), a copy of an e-mail sent to Open Skies staff, th
: AF used the 777-200ER, not the -300ER, on LHR-LAX-LHR. The all-business class flights operated by PrivatAir for LH/LX/KL are operated as normal LH/LX
: And I think that might - stress "might" - have been a mistake. The history of airlines-within-airlines is not a happy one, and when there is a powerf
: That is correct. It is clear most posters here havent flown it and dont understand the product. On AMS JFK it is the only fully flat bed on the route
: I think it will actually be a bit of a shame if this happens. It's unfortunate for this airline really because I agree with a few here that say if the
: Oh my, my memory must be going... Yes right sized airplane, fully integrated into a bigger airline...equals success. Another example is AF Dedicate.
: Yes right sized airplane, fully integrated into a bigger airline...equals success. "Another example is AF Dedicate. They fly A319 Paris-Malabo, N'Djam
: As Viscount724 correctly said, AF used the B77E not the B77W. The choice of the B77E vs A332 is that both LAX and LHR have demand for P class product