Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC At CPH  
User currently offlinearn777 From Sweden, joined Jul 2010, 206 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

Since this thread is archived (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4865508/?threadid=4865508&searchid=4866478&s=Cph+ac)... I see that AC has cut down to only 3w at CPH this coming winter. Anyone knows anything about preformance? DL have removed its winter service completely at CPH (and ARN) so would maybe think that AC would keep its frequency higher..or?

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

I can only site circumstantial evidence, but when I was waiting for a flight from CPH and taking a look at the AC 767, it was due to board and there was hardly anyone there. However, this was in February, so maybe that's why they're cutting back. I've been planning to try this route since it began and I'll travel over in winter as I always do. 3x weekly is still good enough for me.

User currently offlineEBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

I have been on the flight where it has been complete packed both ways - that was in December and April. Actually got upgraded on the way over to YYZ. Loved their flatbeds  

I think the winter season is just slow and with a cocktail of increasing fuel prices they are maybe just cutting back a bit.



Future flights: CPH-BKK-MNL; MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 2):
I have been on the flight where it has been complete packed both ways - that was in December and April. Actually got upgraded on the way over to YYZ. Loved their flatbeds

I second that. I flew AC LAX-YYZ-CPH in january. LAX-YYZ was packed, and a lot of the pax continued on YYZ-CPH which was also packed.

I would think though, that the yields are marginal during winter, which is maybe why they cut the frequencies.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3505 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

The demand between Scandinavia and US/Canada is nearly half as low in the winter compared to the summer

User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 3):
I second that. I flew AC LAX-YYZ-CPH in january. LAX-YYZ was packed, and a lot of the pax continued on YYZ-CPH which was also packed.

Might be true for some departures. However, theese are the loads for last winter.

50% Nov 10
67% Dec 10
56% Jan 11
46% Feb 11
57% Mar 11

Source: http://stat.slv.dk/QvAJAXZfc/opendoc...STAT.qvw&host=Local&anonymous=true


User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 5):
Might be true for some departures. However, theese are the loads for last winter.

50% Nov 10
67% Dec 10
56% Jan 11
46% Feb 11
57% Mar 11

I'm getting some slightly different numbers. Still not too impressive, but not horrible either considering it being wintertime:

55% Nov 10 (31 flights, 211 seats per flight, 3609 pax)
76% Dec 10 (30 flights, 211 seats per flight, 4801 pax)
67% Jan 11 (30 flights, 211 seats per flight, 4227 pax)
62% Feb 11 (24 flights, 211 seats per flight, 3162 pax)
69% Mar 11 (28 flights, 211 seats per flight, 4076 pax)

Same source.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 6):
AC operated 4 weekly flights monday, wednsday, friday and sunday and not 5 weekly as you refer to!
So no, the loads where truly horrible, hence the reduction to 3 weekly for W11.

[Edited 2011-08-02 23:53:37]

[Edited 2011-08-02 23:56:41]

[Edited 2011-08-02 23:57:02]

User currently offlinesas767 From Denmark, joined Dec 1999, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

Your numbers are the correct ones BrisseDk!

Not a surprise to see that g2scandinavia present incorrect figures for CPH as part of the agenda is to portrait CPH as bad as possible - but hey it must be a little frustrating to see CPH having success in attraction new airlines and routes all the time... 


User currently offlinesas767 From Denmark, joined Dec 1999, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 7):
AC operated 4 weekly flights monday, wednsday, friday and sunday and not 5 weekly as you refer to!
So no, the loads where truly horrible, hence the reduction to 3 weekly for W11.

Please check the numbers before you post - the numbers presented by BrisseDk are the correct ones based on the actual number of flights operated in a given month.

I expect you to apologize for posting incorrect information - thanks.


User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 7):
AC operated 4 weekly flights monday, wednsday, friday and sunday and not 5 weekly as you refer to!
So no, the loads where truly horrible, hence the reduction to 3 weekly for W11.

According to SLV, AC operated the number of flights which I have used for my calculation. Really, there is no arguing here. Facts are facts.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

I find it very ironic that discussions about loads and services from CPH must always be answered with the same ridicules accusements!

The numbers where divided from the schedule presented by AC. They show about 2-4 more flights pr month than the statistics presented by Brisse.


I see little reason for any excuse and are delighted that AC do better than I previously had calculated. However, reduction to 3 weekly flights are not a healthy sign. The business marked clearly defines 4 weekly as a minimum for a certain level of attractiveness to an intercontinental service.

Also the presentation and expectations presented by CPH and AC where much higher. One should allow to launch a discussion regarding why the service is now being reduced

[Edited 2011-08-03 00:44:13]

User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 11):
I find it very ironic that discussions about loads and services from CPH must always be answered with the same ridicules accusements!

Same can be said about discussions concerning OSL and to a lesser extent ARN. We all have our preferences, often based on out hometown airport, but that shouldn't keep us from discussing in a civil matter, and to the widest extend possible use facts to support our arguments.

It is disappointing that AC is forced to decrease availability during winter - even more so, that they decrease more than expected. But considering DL who completely cut JFK from both ARN and CPH, I definitely prefer this approach.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 11):
The numbers where divided from the schedule presented by AC. They show about 2-4 more flights pr month than the statistics presented by Brisse.

I'm sure you know this, but "Scheduled" far from equals "Actuals". SLV present the "Actuals" for both number of PAX and number of Operations on their site. I find it very useful.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 11):
However, reduction to 3 weekly flights are not a healthy sign.

It is not a good sign, but I wouldn't read too much into it. I think it is very positive that they keep it at all, considering fuel prices. Clearly they find it worth it.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 11):
The business marked clearly defines 4 weekly as a minimum for a certain level of attractiveness to an intercontinental service.

According to whom? Lots and lots and lots of intercontinental routes are launched with only 3 times weekly flights. So claiming that the "Market clearly defines" is an overstatement. I do agree however, that the higher frequency, the higher business appeal. So on that we can agree.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

A fair question to as is the reality of the market potential presented by CPH.

All North American services operated by CO/AC/DL have been launched with a relative high winter frequency, for later to be reduced or cancelled.
From my experience, the launch of a service and its frequency is a result of an expected market potential. A potential presented and
sold in by the specific airport to the airline in which the service is launched from. In other words, the frequency reflects the market potential sold in for that new service.

A reasonable question to ask is if CPH have sold in expectations to North America that they are unable to fulfill during the winter?
Could other competing airports actually have lost the draw of new services in the favor of CPH, because they have been more modest and correct in the presentation of their market potential to North America?

I have a little problem connecting press releases about the huge potential from CPH presented by the airport followed up by reductions presented by the airlines.

The “best” numbers and supporting statistics will always be hard to compete against. The benchmarking done by CPH in relation to competing airports are misleading and very far from actually
numbers presented. I think is a fair question to ask if the same are used to close deals with new airlines?

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that 4 weekly departures are a minimum frequency. However this is a very common angle for airlines seeking new IC services. If you do not hold a market for more than 3 weekly departures, few airlines are interesting unless there are massive support and special market circumstances related to that service.

Regarding the numbers of arrivals and departures from the site, I did not realize the listing of those in the statistics before the reply in this thread. Hench the calculations from the frequency presented by AC with departures Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.


I hope this could be a constructive discussion!


User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
A fair question to as is the reality of the market potential presented by CPH.

Absolutely

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
From my experience, the launch of a service and its frequency is a result of an expected market potential. A potential presented and sold in by the specific airport to the airline in which the service is launched from. In other words, the frequency reflects the market potential sold in for that new service.

I agree with you to a certain extend, except that the decision is based on "how it is sold in". It is the responsibility of the airport to sell it in as good as possible. It is the responsibility of each airline to investigate the market potential and set the frequency, fares and servicelevel and number of seats. You completely neglect the responsibility of the airlines here.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
Could other competing airports actually have lost the draw of new services in the favor of CPH, because they have been more modest and correct in the presentation of their market potential to North America?

Hate the game, not the player. OSL have an excellent business case these days. A lot of growth, new airlines coming onboard (and sticking around), good economy in general. I am sure that the guys at OSL will spin this the right way, and if not - frankly they don't deserve the business.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
I have a little problem connecting press releases about the huge potential from CPH presented by the airport followed up by reductions presented by the airlines.

The information provided from the airport is 100% valid, since it is based on actual travel data. The tricky part is a) how much will a non-stop flight be able to attract of the current in-direct traffic and b) how much will the non-stop stimulate growth in the market. Both are very hard to determine, though there are some rules-of-thump that apply. Also each airline have people on their payroll to analyze these things. They shouldn't just rely on what the airport (salesman/marketingdep) claims.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
The “best” numbers and supporting statistics will always be hard to compete against. The benchmarking done by CPH in relation to competing airports are misleading and very far from actually
numbers presented. I think is a fair question to ask if the same are used to close deals with new airlines?

Marketing rule number 1: Only trust the statistics which you've manipulated yourself!  

Concerning route potential, the numbers I've seen from OSL on in-direct travel are far from impressive, which I've commented on previously on this board. Again, the numbers are valid. They are based on actual travel data. Just like the ones from CPH. If I worked at CPH, I would definitely use them. If I worked at OSL, I would make sure to find other data that supports my objective.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 13):
Regarding the numbers of arrivals and departures from the site, I did not realize the listing of those in the statistics before the reply in this thread. Hench the calculations from the frequency presented by AC with departures Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.

No harm done  

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

Just thought I would share with you the Route Potential Documents of CPH and OSL:

CPH: http://www.cph.dk/CPH/UK/B2B/Airlines/Top+25+-+Route+opportunities.htm

OSL: http://www.osl.no/en/osl/businesstob...s/_airlines/50_Route+opportunities

Disclaimer: The numbers for OSL are from 2009, and it should be expected that the route potential is even larger now, since OSL has grown quite a bit since then.

Cheers,
BJ

[Edited 2011-08-03 07:23:27]

[Edited 2011-08-03 07:24:22]


Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

The route potential may be there but that doesn't always translate into real people travelling. I am wondering if because of AC being a member of SA and both SAS and LH serving CPH if they are not trying to keep all the aircraft with full loads. The breakeven point on these flights maybe quite high for various reasons and thus make it uneconomical to continue with the service levels that all the airlines are currently providing from the same alliance.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1082 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

There is an essential difference between Air Canada and, say, SAS's Chicago flights from Copenhagen, and it is the transfer share at CPH. Around 78% of the Air Canada passengers terminate at CPH, while over 50% of the SAS passengers transfer and continue their flight to other destinations in Scandinavia, the Baltics and maybe also other European countries. In other words the Air Canada flight more and less only serve the local market (the Øresund region), and CPH not being a Scandinavian hub.

My question to the Danes is: Does Copenhagen use the SAS's normal transfer share to calculate the potential for other destinations, or is this potential based on counting real passsengers that have flown through CPH and their end destination?

If it is the first option that has been used, then there will be a huge error in the CPH numbers. This may be the main reason for airlines on the other side of the Atlantic now need to reduce or cut flights?

[Edited 2011-08-03 09:47:59]

User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 17):
There is an essential difference between Air Canada and, say, SAS's Chicago flights from Copenhagen, and it is the transfer share at CPH. Around 78% of the Air Canada passengers terminate at CPH, while over 50% of the SAS passengers transfer and continue their flight to other destinations in Scandinavia, the Baltics and maybe also other European countries. In other words the Air Canada flight more and less only serve the local market (the Øresund region), and CPH not being a Scandinavian hub.

26% transfer of the YYZ flights, and 51% transfer of the ORD flights. SK uses CPH as a Scandinavian Hub, AC doesn't. Maybe in time, AC will develop the CPH flight to funnel pax rather than through LHR or FRA.

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 17):
My question to the Danes is: Does Copenhagen use the SAS's normal transfer share to calculate the potential for other destinations, or is this potential based on counting real passsengers that have flown through CPH and their end destination?

CPH use the same method as OSL. They use data showing final destination for passengers checking in at the airport.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 11):
I see little reason for any excuse and are delighted that AC do better than I previously had calculated. However, reduction to 3 weekly flights are not a healthy sign. The business marked clearly defines 4 weekly as a minimum for a certain level of attractiveness to an intercontinental service.

But Canada-Scandinavia is a very small business market. That's always been a problem for that market (and certain others like Canada-AMS) for Canadian carriers. Even with full flights in Y class it's hard to generate the same yield as to markets with much more business traffic.


User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1082 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Since you are committed to accuracy, the AC average transfer share since the start up in June 2010 has been 22.2% and the SK average transfer share during the same period has been 51.9%.

Based on the information in the SLV.dk database, the passenger loads that can be identified are like this:


Even with a big reduction in frequency during the the Winter season 2010/2011, the passenger loads for both American airlines are below the SAS only destinations in the USA except for the very low Chicago values in February and March. I've also added the published SAS intercontinental passenger loads to indicate what may have happened between April and June this year. Since Delta already in June decided to cut short their service in to CPH, this must be a clear indication that the "promised" loads could not be achieved - even during the Summer season. During the time we now have looked in to, Delta have had maximum 6% of their passengers transferring at CPH and therefore it's easy to conclude the local passengers aren't there. Delta may also have seen a strong reduction in the US demand due to their financial trouble. But with also Air Canada reducing more than last year during the Winter, it's a second indication that CPH don't deliver what they promise. The international transfer share at CPH in March 2011 compared with March 2010 went down with 5.5% and this reduction continues to worsen - in June the international transfer share went down 12.5% year-on-year.

It will be interesting to follow the new Emirates service that has just started and also the wide body Qatar service. The Qatar service looks like it depends heavily on the local demand as only 6-10% is transfer passengers the three first months this year. May be it's in light of this Qatar will start to serve Oslo in October?


User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Comparing route potentials from CPH and OSL is somewhat comparing apples and oranges.

Quote:
Københavns Lufthavn har i dag 23 oversøiske ruter. 12 pct. flyver med langruter, ca. 1/3 fra lufthavnens ”lokalområde,” resten fra andre lufthavne. Lufthavnen havde i fjor år 21,5 mio. passagerer.
http://www.takeoff.dk/news/21375

According to Danish aviation related news sites and statistics from CPH, 2/3 of the loads on the IC services are passengers connecting from airports outside the local catchment area of the Øresund region..
A passenger traveling ARNCPHEWRLAX, will be counted in the final destination statistics to Los Angeles from both ARN and CPH.
Further, a passenger traveling CPHOSLKEF will occur twice at the statistics for OSL and CPH for the numbers of annual pax to Reykjavik.

Given the numbers presented as the average transfer loads on IC flights from CPH, 2/3 of the pax presented for the route potentials from CPH will also be included in the route potential statistics for other airports. Given the limited transfer numbers at OSL and ARN, these route potentials outlines more or less the local market only. Looking at the arrival statistics presented by the tourist/custom authorities of different countries, shows that its little difference between NO and DK arrivals, further confirming the local Scandinavian markets for being very similar and generating more or less the same local pax potential.

The question is as I see it, If CPH are selling a route potential based on the transfer numbers referred to by LN-KGL? It seems logic that the 2/3 of transfer pax are more vulnerable numbers on the route potential statistics, as they might be easily affected by a strengthen route network from their airports of origin?

Could it be that AC among other airlines at CPH have been sold in route potentials in which the airport are unable to secure through promised transfer traffic? Hence the loads of local pax being too few and declining in line with the increased launch of new direct services from large "transfer serving airports" of CPH?


User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 20):
Since you are committed to accuracy, the AC average transfer share since the start up in June 2010 has been 22.2% and the SK average transfer share during the same period has been 51.9%.

Based on the information in the SLV.dk database, the passenger loads that can be identified are like this:

Aren't we all committed to accuracy?

I'm at work, so I've only just briefly taken af look at your numbers. And they don't add up. The load factor for DL on JFK-CPH is 89,3% in 2010 and 60,1% for the first 3 months of 2011 (assuming that they use a 158 seat 757 on all flights). What assumptions have you made to come up with this graph?

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 20):
May be it's in light of this Qatar will start to serve Oslo in October?

I don't think QRs CPH service has much to do with them starting DOH-OSL. It is all OSLs own effort and performance that has given them this opportunity, and I'm happy for it.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 21):
According to Danish aviation related news sites and statistics from CPH, 2/3 of the loads on the IC services are passengers connecting from airports outside the local catchment area of the Øresund region..
A passenger traveling ARNCPHEWRLAX, will be counted in the final destination statistics to Los Angeles from both ARN and CPH.
Further, a passenger traveling CPHOSLKEF will occur twice at the statistics for OSL and CPH for the numbers of annual pax to Reykjavik.

I agree!

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 21):
Given the numbers presented as the average transfer loads on IC flights from CPH, 2/3 of the pax presented for the route potentials from CPH will also be included in the route potential statistics for other airports. Given the limited transfer numbers at OSL and ARN, these route potentials outlines more or less the local market only. Looking at the arrival statistics presented by the tourist/custom authorities of different countries, shows that its little difference between NO and DK arrivals, further confirming the local Scandinavian markets for being very similar and generating more or less the same local pax potential.

Yes, I follow your logic here also. You mean that a pax routed ARN-CPH-KEF-JFK will be in the route potential for both ARN and CPH, which is incorrect. That pax will only be in the route potential for ARN, since the route potential at CPH, OSL, and ARN is based on pax checking in at that airport, and who have an intermediate (or several) stops on their way to the final destination. For the transfer airport they simply count as a transfer pax to the transfer destination (KEF).

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 21):
The question is as I see it, If CPH are selling a route potential based on the transfer numbers referred to by LN-KGL? It seems logic that the 2/3 of transfer pax are more vulnerable numbers on the route potential statistics, as they might be easily affected by a strengthen route network from their airports of origin?easily affected by a strengthen route network from their airports of origin?

Could it be that AC among other airlines at CPH have been sold in route potentials in which the airport are unable to secure through promised transfer traffic? Hence the loads of local pax being too few and declining in line with the increased launch of new direct services from large "transfer serving airports" of CPH?

CPH cannot guarantee any form of transfer activity through the airport, since it is determined solely by the operating airline. They make the arrangements, agreements, reservation-setup etc. The airport has very limited to say in this part, though they can help make the transfer possibility as smooth/cheap/flexible as possible. And I am sure that CPH use their smooth operation as an incentive for the likes of AC to transfer pax at CPH. They would be foolish not to - even though they haven't been so succesfull so far.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
User currently offlineg2scandinavia From Norway, joined Jun 2010, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 22):
You mean that a pax routed ARN-CPH-KEF-JFK will be in the route potential for both ARN and CPH, which is incorrect. That pax will only be in the route potential for ARN, since the route potential at CPH, OSL, and ARN is based on pax checking in at that airport, and who have an intermediate (or several) stops on their way to the final destination. For the transfer airport they simply count as a transfer pax to the transfer destination (KEF).

It might be so for CPH,. This is not the way the statistics and numbers for OSL are presented. If you travel CPH - OSL - KEF, OSL will include the passenger starting in CPH in their route potentials.
From what I learned, this is a normal and standardized procedure in the passenger statistics through IATA.

However the passenger will not be counted on the CPHOSL leg as OSL only presents numbers for final destination in the statistics refered to new potential airlines.

Its immediate obvious if you look at the OSL Travel survey 2009.
Munich 128.083 pax
Frankfurt 120.701 pax

(The total traffic TO and THROUGH Frankfurt and Munich was over 600.000 pax in 2009

From OSLwhat I can see, the route potential list of CPH does not add up to the actual numbers if based solitary on pax checking in at CPH.
I might be wrong, but that’s everything I have learned and been told through the last two years I’ve been working with this  Smile


[Edited 2011-08-04 01:16:33]

User currently offlineBrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 23):
It might be so for CPH,. This is not the way the statistics and numbers for OSL are presented. If you travel CPH - OSL - KEF, OSL will include the passenger starting in CPH in their route potentials.
From what I learned, this is a normal and standardized procedure in the passenger statistics through IATA.

I understand where you are going with this, but your example is not correct. When we talk about Route Potential, we talk about a route NOT CURRENTLY SERVED. The Route Potential List for OSL would not include KEF, since KEF is already served (I've been on it several times on SK). Had KEF not been served from OSL, then a pax travelling OSL-ARN-KEF be in the Route Potential for OSL-KEF, but not for ARN-KEF, since ARN-KEF would already served.

If you want to attract a NEW airline, to a route ALREADY SERVED, then that is a whole different story, and there you are absolutely correct (and LN-KGL also).

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 23):
From what I can see, the route potential list of CPH does not add up to the actual numbers if based solitary on pax checking in at CPH. I might be wrong, but that’s everything I have learned and been told through the last two years I’ve been working whit this

If that is the case, then CPH is presenting false data, and I suggest you back it up with numbers.

Cheers,
BJ



Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
25 g2scandinavia : For instance according to US immigration, 258.788 Danes arrived in 2010. CPH says about 25% of its local traffic originates from the Swedish part of t
26 BrisseDK : 1) You are making a lot of assumptions in this type of calculation. And I'm not comfortable with such an approach, as you can tangle it any way you'd
27 g2scandinavia : Well, my only assumption is that the market pattern is simalar to that found from Sweden and Norway. The rest of the information provided are avaliab
28 BrisseDK : Let's back this up a bit. Your major argument is, that when you try to verify the CPH numbers, by what ever means you find reasonable, you find a disc
29 g2scandinavia : There is a great difference in point to point traffic and transfer traffic. LCC's and smaller airlines with limited transfer operations use point to
30 ARN : Thank you guys for an interesting discussion. It is not surprising that this topic shifted to an OSL vs. CPH comparison. ARN is painfully absent. And
31 Post contains images BrisseDK : Ok, so I am now 100% certain what you mean, thank you for clarifying. I still do not agree, but I have no way of proving that you are wrong, so I lea
32 LN-KGL : To me it looks like you Danes count the transfer passengers as local passengers. The transfer share that g2scandinavia mention (two thirds) seems only
33 BrisseDK : Speaking of cheating with numbers, you might want to re-check the load-factor numbers you published in an earlier post. Cheers, BJ
34 LN-KGL : BrisseDK, you have to recheck your numbers then. I got all mine directly from the Trafikstyrelsen database. There are some issues with the number of f
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...
New Low Cost Pier At CPH To Be A Disaster? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 05:31:01 by SKAirbus
CO123/08FEB Tech At CPH posted Mon Feb 9 2009 11:32:00 by Birka340
IL-62 & TU-154 Russian State AC At AMS Today posted Tue Apr 29 2008 13:07:55 by Luxair
SK Flight Cancelled At CPH Due To Terrorism Scare posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:15:24 by BuyantUkhaa
SAS/LH Discrepancy For Checking In At CPH posted Fri Jan 25 2008 01:36:25 by Milan320
Dash8 Gear Collapse At CPH posted Sat Oct 27 2007 08:30:52 by EBGflyer
AC At YMM 12 Sep 2007 posted Thu Sep 13 2007 06:17:15 by Psyops
AC At YVR posted Sun May 20 2007 02:19:12 by GoBlue
MD-11 At CPH? posted Sun Apr 29 2007 22:25:22 by AbleToFly
Dl 767 At CPH posted Fri Jan 12 2007 14:58:21 by AbleToFly