Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Linate Airport Ever Closing?  
User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 979 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5219 times:

Just wondering if the Italian government will ever close LIN and shift all the flights to MXP making it the sole airport in Milan. I think one of the good things that might come out of this is that AZ will finally be able to feed it's longhaul operations at MXP.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEY460 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

No, never. Maybe they will reduce the traffic but at least the Milan-Rome will stay at Linate. They are even building a metro line connecting Linate with the city centre.

User currently offlineEY460 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5202 times:

I forgot. There isn't much AZ long-haul left (or medium and short haul) at MXP. New York, Miami, Tokyo and that's it. AZ hub is now Rome.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

Quoting miaintl (Thread starter):
Just wondering if the Italian government will ever close LIN and shift all the flights to MXP making it the sole airport in Milan. I think one of the good things that might come out of this is that AZ will finally be able to feed it's longhaul operations at MXP.

That would be a big mistake. LIN generates much higher yields and is by far the most attractive Milan airport for O&D business traffic. Why close it to benefit lower-yield connecting traffic? You would also just push more local Milan-Rome traffic to high-speed rail service. AZ doesn't have much longhaul service left at MXP anyway so feeding it isn't a high priority.

[Edited 2012-07-24 12:08:02]

User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5084 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4915 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
That would be a big mistake. LIN generates much higher yields is by far the most attractive Milan airport for O&D business traffic. Why close it to benefit lower-yield connecting traffic? You would also just push more local Milan-Rome traffic to high-speed rail service. AZ doesn't have much longhaul service left at MXP anyway so feeding it isn't a high priority.

Then why was MXP build in the first place? I thought as well that LIN would close after MXP was operational, and its not that far from the city center either that it would scare business travelers away. Nonstop train from citycenter to terminal 1 is 29 minutes.



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 4):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
That would be a big mistake. LIN generates much higher yields is by far the most attractive Milan airport for O&D business traffic. Why close it to benefit lower-yield connecting traffic? You would also just push more local Milan-Rome traffic to high-speed rail service. AZ doesn't have much longhaul service left at MXP anyway so feeding it isn't a high priority.

Then why was MXP build in the first place? I thought as well that LIN would close after MXP was operational, and its not that far from the city center either that it would scare business travelers away. Nonstop train from citycenter to terminal 1 is 29 minutes.

As I mentioned, there isn't much longhaul service left at MXP, so closing LIN would benefit other carriers much more than AZ. For example, connections on LX from MXP via ZRH are a very popular option for passengers to/from Milan. Connecting at FCO in many cases means a backhaul and longer travel times than via ZRH/MUC/AMS and other hubs.

On the other hand, the convenience of LIN probably offsets the somewhat longer distances via FCO.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3964 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4797 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
That would be a big mistake. LIN generates much higher yields and is by far the most attractive Milan airport for O&D business traffic. Why close it to benefit lower-yield connecting traffic?

There is a trade-off. A single airport is able to attract a large volume of connecting passengers, which in turn expand the schedule for high-yield traffic. Cities which have any aspiration to be hubs will have greater success with a single airport.

To high-yield traffic, the benefits of closing Linate would be more long-haul flights and more frequency on key routes.


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

If LIN was such a conveniant airport than building MXP was a mistake and it should never have been done in the first place. I still would like to know why AZ shifted it's hub to FCO back in 2008? AZ shot themselves in the foot and lost all their premium traffic by doing that. Still I think MXP was built with the idea that LIN will eventually close and MXP would have been Milan's sole airport kind of what happened in Hong Kong. Hong Kong did not keep Kai Tak open after the new airport was built even though Kai Tak is closer to the buisness center and more conveniant for buisness travelers. I don't see why Milan could not have followed Hong Kongs example.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 7):
If LIN was such a conveniant airport than building MXP was a mistake and it should never have been done in the first place.
LIN was too small to handle traffic growth and widebodies and couldn't be expanded and the 8000 ft. runway is too short for longhaul flights.

Many cities in Europe have more than one airport -- examples: London, Paris, Rome, Belfast, Glasgow, Stockholm, Oslo, Istanbul, Moscow (also Berlin until next year). Why not Milan?

[Edited 2012-07-24 14:28:15]

User currently offlineflymeariver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4428 times:

Having lived in Milan, I must note that Linate and Malpensa serve 2 different niches. One of the main purposes of building Malpensa was to facilitate much of the overseas business traffic that comes to the area surrounding Milan, rather than the city center. There is a large amount of industry in the areas surrounding Milan, particularly out toward Malpensa, which does in fact make Malpensa an easier arrival point. However, if you are traveling to the city center, Linate is a much easier alternative by virtue of the fact that it's much closer and much smaller. This is why a number of airlines in Europe offer service to both Malpensa AND Linate.

User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):

I understand what your saying but why does AZ not have it's milan opertions soley at mxp so it can feed the longhaul flights there? What would happen if AZ were to decide to shift all its linate operations to malpensa?


User currently offlineflymeariver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 10):
but why does AZ not have it's milan opertions soley at mxp so it can feed the longhaul flights there? What would happen if AZ were to decide to shift all its linate operations to malpensa?

Malpensa and Linate are 2 separate markets. Just because they are both "Milan" does not mean that they serve the same purpose. Both airports rely almost entirely on O&D traffic, there is little to no connecting traffic at either airport. Because of this, Alitalia is able to easily fill the flights it has at Malpensa without need for feeder traffic. Northern Italy is very populated and has a high amount of business demand, so there is no need to feed more passengers into Malpensa to fill the Alitalia flights--it's easier to funnel passengers thru their Rome hub for connections (to fill those planes instead) rather than try to operate 2 hubs that would essentially compete against each other.

It would be foolish for Alitalia to shift its Linate operations to Malpensa when Linate has a high amount of demand. As others have said, doing this would drive many passengers to the train lines instead because Linate passengers are trying to reach Milan city center as quickly as possible. Linate and Malpensa are, essentially, two separate destinations despite the fact that they are both in "Milan", and this is why many airlines, not just Alitalia, fly to BOTH Linate and Malpensa.


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting flymeariver (Reply 11):

But FCO is a very inconveniant connecting hub that involves backtracking for many northern Italians. It makes much more sense for AZ to have a hub at MXP since it is better located. Plus LH operates two hubs that compete against eachother so I don't see why AZ can't do the same. Also LIn does handle alot of connecting traffic it is basically AZ second hub, and as this is the case it is better to shift it's linate operations to MXP which is better designed to handle connecting traffic.


User currently offlineokapi From France, joined Jun 2006, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

Most traffic in Europe is intra-EU nowadays. Crisis has badly affected yields on long-haul markets such as North America. Malpensa was built and expanded at a time when nobody could predict the future. The A380 (such as AF and LH) where non-existent and AZ was a much different business then. Today these two airlines are alliance majors and have to feed their metal, even at the expense of any MXP would-be based airline. Pervasive politics help waste zillions of public money for a project that had no real grounds for being spent. On top of that, the lack of proper ground infrastructures (third satellite, rail connecting both terminals, roads across the area) did not help at the time when MXP was being expanded.

Today, MXP and LIN are two different airports, as is BGY. The markets have changed but major players and their customers will dictate the way to follow. Low-cost airlines are big and bigger, there's not enough potential in Milan for a long-haul based airline with quality networks (and their clients as FFP users) all around, ZRH, CDG, AMS, FRA/MUC, LHR, not to mention FCO itself.


User currently offlineflymeariver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 12):
But FCO is a very inconveniant connecting hub that involves backtracking for many northern Italians. It makes much more sense for AZ to have a hub at MXP since it is better located. Plus LH operates two hubs that compete against eachother so I don't see why AZ can't do the same. Also LIn does handle alot of connecting traffic it is basically AZ second hub, and as this is the case it is better to shift it's linate operations to MXP which is better designed to handle connecting traffic.
FCO is not necessarily out of the way, it depends where you're coming from. In the markets where there is strongest demand to/from Northern Italy, Alitalia already has a presence with longhaul flights at MXP and shorthaul flights at LIN. As I said, the airports are essentially 2 different markets. Combining them would be foolish for AZ and would not yield any better performance results. If combining the two operations was efficient, AZ would not have dismantled its hub at MXP. You are viewing MXP and LIN as trying to serve the same market, which is not true.

A good comparison to draw here is New York City, having LaGuardia and JFK. People trying to get into Manhattan quickly are more likely to choose LGA because of its proximity to the city. Yet, airlines such as AA and Delta still are able to maintain a strong presence at both airports because of the two different types of operations going on at each airport. Closing LIN and moving its operations to MXP would be like closing LGA and moving its operations to JFK. You'd make it that much more difficult for passengers trying to get to Manhattan quickly (many of which would likely turn to Amtrak as an alternative, rather than JFK) and close off service to an airport which has a large amount of demand in its own right, just for the sake of keeping everything under one roof. Your logic is flawed, sorry.

[Edited 2012-07-25 08:01:53]

User currently offlineokapi From France, joined Jun 2006, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 12):


I fully agree with flymeariver's comments. On top of that, if you're flying to North America, going to FCO doesn't make sense. However, South America, Asia, the Middle East/Med region and Africa do account for a very large part of the intercontinental traffic our of Milan. In this case, why on earth should you go North for transit? Don't forget that AF/KL have moved all services to LIN and AZ being part of Skyteam, no matter where you fly to as long as it's on Skyteam. AZ will sell the ticket, keep its share and make sure that passengers won't go on another network.
There's another factor that pushes Italian travellers on hubbing somewhere else in EU. Every year, they have to pay a passport tax to be added to the cost of issueing the document. If you are officially bound to Paris or Amsterdam, an ID card is sufficient...BA knows it well along with all other players at LIN.


User currently offlineGolfBravoRomeo From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Are there currently any rules restricting ops at LIN? There were some in the past, right?

How does this situation differ from YUL/YMX?


User currently offlineYYCspotter From Canada, joined Jul 2012, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting GolfBravoRomeo (Reply 16):
How does this situation differ from YUL/YMX?

YMX was built to replace YUL. however, it was farther from Montreal than YUL, and while most international traffic was diverted to YMX for a short time, YUL renovated and expanded. once that was finished, airlines saw YUL as more profitable than YMX and moved back to YUL. due to the drastically decreased traffic in YMX, it was closed to all but freight and bombardier.

It sort of reminds me of Tokyo's Haneda/Narita.



I
User currently offlineokapi From France, joined Jun 2006, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Quoting GolfBravoRomeo (Reply 16):

Yes, indeed. No wide-bodies allowed apart from the sole TNT A300F parked there during the day operating one evening rotation to LGG if I'm not mistaken. All other airlines may operate with single aisle aircraft only.
Years ago, I recall flying into LIN with both BA's 767s and AF/AZ A300. Since then, the largest aircraft operating have been the A321 and the Boeing 757-200 (IB?).
Also, all flights must operate within the EU. May we consider slots and fog natural restrictions as well?....


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 4):
I thought as well that LIN would close after MXP was operational,

No, that was never the intention. I recall that AZ wanted all airlines to move to MXP so that it can have LIN for itself and thus have a competitive advantage for the intra-European routes. However, not many wanted to move as LIN is much more attractive for Milan bound pax than MXP (hence why AF/KL axed MXP).

Quoting flymeariver (Reply 14):
If combining the two operations was efficient, AZ would not have dismantled its hub at MXP.

I recall that KL wanted the AZ hub to be in MXP instead of FCO but politics prevented this. Though this wasn't a decisive reason, it drove AZ and KL apart (and their joint venture collapsed). Nowadays there is no reason for Skyteam to start a hub at MXP again as they already have CDG and AMS for transatlantic traffic ex Milan.


User currently offlineokapi From France, joined Jun 2006, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting LJ (Reply 19):

Add to that most of the north-rich traffic originates in cities that have no interest whatsoever to go to MXP, those pax do prefer either LIN or smaller airports such as TRN, VRN, GOA, VCE, TRS, BLQ, FLR...AZ tried a long time ago with ATRs and other regional aircraft but to no avail. Today's fate of MXP is in the hands of Middle East carriers (EK-3xdaily) and low-cost airlines. A share of long-haul flights will remain but only if they can generate high yields throughout the year. AA sets a good example on their FCO seasonal ops.

As long as politicians will try to run the airline industry, airports will be forced to accept whatever comes...


User currently offlineflymeariver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting okapi (Reply 20):
Add to that most of the north-rich traffic originates in cities that have no interest whatsoever to go to MXP, those pax do prefer either LIN or smaller airports such as TRN, VRN, GOA, VCE, TRS, BLQ, FLR...AZ tried a long time ago with ATRs and other regional aircraft but to no avail.

Add to that that connections via other major hubs in the Schengen region to smaller cities in Italy (and elsewhere) have become much easier over the past couple of decades. It is no longer necessarily "easier" to first enter Italy from overseas via MXP or FCO to then connect to a smaller Italian city. I remember from my younger years that the "only" way to get to NAP from the US was on Alitalia via FCO-- everything else used to be "unheard of" because entering another country for a connection added extra hassle. Now with codeshare agreements and the Schengen agreement, passengers more easily flow thru other European hubs to connect onward to cities like NAP, TRN, VCE, etc. The role of MXP and FCO as primary connection hubs to onward cities in Italy has somewhat diminished because of this.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting YYCspotter (Reply 17):
Quoting GolfBravoRomeo (Reply 16):
How does this situation differ from YUL/YMX?

YMX was built to replace YUL. however, it was farther from Montreal than YUL, and while most international traffic was diverted to YMX for a short time, YUL renovated and expanded. once that was finished, airlines saw YUL as more profitable than YMX and moved back to YUL. due to the drastically decreased traffic in YMX, it was closed to all but freight and bombardier.

The big difference is that YUL was big enough to handle all of Montreal's traffic, shorthaul and longhaul, and has runways up to 11,000 ft. LIN can't do that.. Passengers, especially high-yield business traffic, much prefer to use the closest airport, especially considering Montreal's winter weather. YUL is 19 km from the city center. YMX is over 50 km..

Quoting miaintl (Reply 12):
Also LIN does handle a lot of connecting traffic it is basically AZ second hub, and as this is the case it is better to shift it's linate operations to MXP which is better designed to handle connecting traffic.

Are there really a lot of connections at LIN? I find that surprising. In my experience it's almost exclusively an O&D airport. What are some examples where it would make sense to connect at LIN?

As has already been explained multiple times, if AZ shifted its LIN operations to MXP it would lose a huge amount of high yield business traffic. All the other carriers now serving LIN would be very happy to make use of the vacated slots at LIN.


User currently offlineYYCspotter From Canada, joined Jul 2012, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
The big difference is that YUL was big enough to handle all of Montreal's traffic, shorthaul and longhaul

True, very true. if anything, LIN is just a larger version of YTZ. they are actually very similar. they have no room for expansion, they can't handle long-haul traffic, and are closer to the city centre. the main difference; YTZ is on a island and cant handle anything much larger than a CRJ/Q400.

YTZ: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/7/2/8/2077827.jpg

LIN: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/9/9/1086996.jpg



I
User currently offlinelollomz From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting okapi (Reply 18):

Just to underline that the A300 is history now. The only widebody aircraft in LIN is now an ABX Air B767-200F.


25 okapi : Thanks for the update. I last spotted the big bus last may when being bussed around the tarmac at LIN for a flight to CTA. Do you know if they still
26 lollomz : Yes , the ABX Cargo is on the termac all day long in LIN, the schedule didn't change. About the taxi from LIN/MXP there is an upgrade: in LIN the new
27 miaintl : Yes LIN does handle alot of connecting traffic through AZ who operates a mini hub there. I have family in the south of Italy and they frequently tran
28 Viscount724 : As already mentioned, AZ can't move it's longhaul operations from MXP to LIN due to the operational restrictions at LIN. As far as I can tell, AZ onl
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...
Will The Pickering Airport Ever Be Built? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 04:37:59 by N43W79
Meigs, The Busiest Abandoned Airport Ever? posted Wed Dec 8 2004 21:46:16 by SSTjumbo
Has Airport Ever Told Airline To Go Away? posted Tue Feb 10 2004 13:17:10 by Richardw
Will Luton Airport Ever Be Expanded posted Thu Sep 11 2003 20:20:47 by EZYAirbus
Close Call At Linate Airport! posted Wed Jan 22 2003 13:29:41 by Sudden
Was Baghdad Airport Ever Used As A Stopover Point? posted Mon Apr 1 2002 02:41:51 by AdamHarvard
F9 Closing Wichita Mid-Continent Airport Flights posted Tue Jul 17 2012 06:45:36 by enilria
Occupy: Plymouth Airport's Closing Day posted Fri Dec 23 2011 06:52:53 by PlymSpotter
Lusaka Airport Busier Than Ever. posted Fri Dec 9 2011 08:44:03 by warren747sp
Has An Airline Ever Owned An Airport? posted Fri May 30 2008 11:21:10 by PeachAir