Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
One Global Alliance.  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10660 times:

Please don't have a go at me but I have to ask this question....

Considering the recent developments and questions hanging over the middle eastern carriers....

If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

Because as far as I can see it's more about airports and location these days as very few airports have more than one major home carrier. (with routes that overlap anyway)

It's probably a really stupid question but why wouldn't that work ?


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebobbypsp From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One word: monopoly

It would never work as it decreases competition


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

Are suggesting a return to simple interline agreements pooling and use of IATA clearing ?


User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10484 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):


It's probably a really stupid question but why wouldn't that work ?

Anti-competition. Even though AMS is dominated by Skyteam they are kept honest by the likes of LH and BA, operating feeder flights in the airport, keeping prices down.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10392 times:

Quoting bobbypsp (Reply 1):
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 3):

Yes I agree with all that but....

Take LHR-FRA though.

There are 19 flights a day between BA and LH.

A couple more for LH than BA but the rest leave approx at the same time or within an hour of each other.

Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Wouldn't 10 be better ...5 each.....on larger aircraft....still the same frequency



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10337 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):
Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Actually, you bring up a good point. Kinda upsets some people... less companies/more monopolies = less competition, higher prices, less consumer protections, but is way more green! Go figure.

I think the gulf carriers are overrated. The alliances aren't going to crumble under their wrath, life will go on. Remember, more competition is generally a good thing. You seem to be keen on a lot more merging... look at the old Aeroflot and see how service severely degraded



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10466 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10332 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):
Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Wouldn't 10 be better ...5 each.....on larger aircraft....still the same frequency

Methinks this is your same argument as before, just modified slightly........aren't you tired of getting beat up?  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10290 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):

If it made more sense, then the airlines would fly larger planes with less frequency. The market is demanding and will pay more for more frequency.

Please read some Milton Friedman or similar book on introductory economics. They are really very readable and easy to understand. More of our politicians should be required to read such material.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4019 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):
e suggesting a return to simple interline agreements pooling and use of IATA clearing ?

Exactly. That is the way it used to be. It used to be much easier to pile up airlines with interline agreements on the same ticket paying a reasonable fare.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10158 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 6):
........aren't you tired of getting beat up?

It does make more sense though right ?

1 BA flight at 2pm

1 LH flight at 3pm

1 BA flight at 4pm

1 LH flight at 5pm

.......................................and so on.

How is having 10 flights on larger aircraft instead of 20 on smaller uncompetitive..........?

Why are mergers, consolidation, anti-trust etc etc acceptable on one hand but not on the other ?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25457 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10030 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

That system was in place for decades before alliances were created, although code-sharing was a somewhat more recent addition but long before alliances existed. Revenue-sharing (then known as pooling) dates back to the early days of commercial aviation. Almost all airlines in Europe were in revenue-sharing/pooling agreements with the other major carrier serving the same international routes. As one example, AF and BEA both operated London-Paris and agreed on schedules/capacity/fares. They also agreed that AF would serve ORY and BEA would serve LBG.

There were many other pooling agreements in other parts of the world, except on routes involving the U.S.where it was illegal due to antitrust laws. And today that sort of activity of course remains illegal to/from the U.S. except where Open Skies agreements have been reached, the first of which was U.S.-Netherlands in 1992 that permitted the KLM/NW joint venture which was the first of its kind in the U.S.market.

Basically, you still have most of the old pre-alliance system in place today in addition to the alliances and today's revenue-sharing joint ventures, as virtually all major airlines (except LCCs that usually don't interline with some exceptions) have interline agreements with virtually all other major carriers, regardless of alliance. And there are dozens of code-share agreements that involve carriers in different alliances (or in no alliance).


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9598 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):

It does not make more sense. If you artificially reduce frequencies, there is no reason why the airlines would necessarily increase the gauge of the equipment. The size of the equipment they use will be to maximize profit, not to keep the current capacity.

What you are proposing is going back to how things worked before deregulation. Back then airfares were much higher on an inflation adjusted basis and the governments decided what routes and frequencies each airline could fly.

I have no desire for the return of those days.

If you are really looking for a more indepth explanation as to why your theory does not work in the real world and don't want to read economics, you can get a book called Freakonomics...and pay special attention to the repeated occurrences of unintended consequences from well meaned political actions.

[Edited 2012-07-28 18:13:35]

User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8397 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 11):

I still don't understand.

Airlines are doing this more and more in the shape of alliances, J.V's etc

I understand where there are many airlines competing on the same route but...

There are many routes in the world that are kind of ***sacrosanct*** if you like.

e.g where you have two legacy carriers connecting two major metropoli

Like the European capital city or financial centre airports that don't have LCC presence.

I don't see why just making these routes more 'efficient' whilst not reducing capacity is anti competitive.

That's double standards considering developments over recent years.

So what if an airline can increase yield without raising prices or reducing capacity....isn't that a healthy thing ?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7162 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8330 times:

Mikey, your points would be so much easier to understand if you wrote in Paragraphs. That also means building an arguement rather than just asking questions.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 12):
That's double standards considering developments over recent years.

Airlines have a certain offering for a certain price point. Why should BA add passengers to arch-rival - Luftansa when it takes from their direct services? To use a football analogy - it would be the same as arguing that all matches should end 1-1, or all supermarkets just become Tesco.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 12):
airline can increase yield without raising prices

How can you increase yield (fares) without increasing the price?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):
How is having 10 flights on larger aircraft instead of 20 on smaller uncompetitive

The twenty smaller flights feed hubs, improving connectivity, and competitiveness. They also feed hubs at different ends of the route, so ten flights might not suit.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20671 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

The alliances aren't just about flight scheduling, but also embrace joint purchasing and marketing, amongst others, which saves money for the airlines. Most of us live in capitalist economies where competition drives benefits for the consumers. I don't see what's so wrong with that system.

Da, comrade?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8156 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 13):

I understand that.

We cannot avoid the fact though that in Europe anyway (because all the major players are in different alliances) we have cities in relatively very close proximity to each other like Paris, Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Zurich etc etc that are NEVER going to benefit from air links with each other using the best possible synergies ?

(sorry for cities i have not included but am just getting point across)

Let me call all intra-European traffic 'EU DomesticTraffic' for the sake of argument.

Is it not vital for the EU to have the most efficient well organized links connecting its major conurbations ?

Are there not 'micro climates' within certain geographical areas that the alliances hinder ?

I don't want to some big soviet style monster (far from it) but I do believe there are 'flaws' in the system maybe.

[Edited 2012-07-29 00:48:17]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 734 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8055 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

You mean why don't we just have one soft drink, COCA-COLA, all over the world instead of so many different ones driving unnecessary competition and distributing revenue in so many places, and some leading to losses, etc?

  

Competition. Capitalism.

and at the heart ... Different business models. Different philosophy. Different hub priorities.


User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7162 posts, RR: 57
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7954 times:

Mikey, tell us how your plan would work rather than asking question after question after question. Monopolies increase fares and reduce service and demand.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
I don't want to some big soviet style monster (far from it) but I do believe there are 'flaws' in the system maybe.

Russia is a great example - where so much of the capacity is being renationalised under Aeroflot - resulting in people flying from ekaterinburg to novosibirsk - 3rd and 4th largest cities often have to back track 2 hours to Moscow to fly betwen the cities.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):

Is it not vital for the EU to have the most efficient well organized links connecting its major conurbations ?

Lets close all airports, and improve the rail network then.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7881 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 17):
Mikey, tell us how your plan would work rather than asking question after question after question. Monopolies increase fares and reduce service and demand.

I will try.

Let's look at LHR-FRA. (as just one example in Europe)

Importantly I am not considering London to Frankfurt (we have the LCC's to provide the competition) but LHR-FRA.

Nobody else is ever going to enter that market other than BA and LH. In their right mind anyway.

We don't question that we just accept it as obvious for many overwhelming reasons and ad infinitum while both carriers are in business this will be the case.

Like I said it is sacrosanct.

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

The other reason is that one day whether we like it or not I think airlines because of the polluting fuel burning nature of the industry will be 'forced' to make concessions like this.

Someone somewhere in a high place will one day start asking questions.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

They did for thirty+ years fully pooling services and only 6 years ago was were IATA regulated fares suspended

This article is worth a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ransport_Association#Price_setting


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7771 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ASA (Reply 16):
You mean why don't we just have one soft drink, COCA-COLA, all over the world instead of so many different ones driving unnecessary competition and distributing revenue in so many places, and some leading to losses, etc?

  

Competition. Capitalism.

and at the heart ... Different business models. Different philosophy. Different hub priorities.

ASA no disrespect but the airline to which you attach your flag continues to use IATA fare setting calculations to this day.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 7638 times:

All I am suggesting is some fine tuning of the current system to make it more efficient.

Forgive the crudeness of this but you will get the idea.....




Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7162 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 7588 times:

Mikey, you really need to start using paragraphs and punctuation. Your comments are thought provoking, but virtually impossible to comprehend.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

In the same way Tesco and Asda and sainsburys and morrissons and the co-op should co-operate by reducing the number of stores to one for west london, only selling 1ltr milk and sliced white bread? In the same way that Man U and Man C should be one team - how about one football team for all of London.

How about all flights to Paris from London stopping so we can all take the train?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
We don't question that we just accept it as obvious for many overwhelming reasons and ad infinitum while both carriers are in business this will be the case.

I have no idea what you are saying here.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 22):
Mikey, you really need to start using paragraphs and punctuation. Your comments are thought provoking, but virtually impossible to comprehend.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

In the same way Tesco and Asda and sainsburys and morrissons and the co-op should co-operate by reducing the number of stores to one for west london, only selling 1ltr milk and sliced white bread? In the same way that Man U and Man C should be one team - how about one football team for all of London.

How about all flights to Paris from London stopping so we can all take the train?

There were plenty of differentiators not just prices ! APEX / Excursion Weekend stay etc.... plus service and added value packages under the regulated IATA system.

Oh and the Supermarkets are far more savvy -they also use loyalty and quality differentiators its not just price !

You mention trains well to some extent the IATA fare system was rather similar to the UK FULL fare government regulated tariffs we STILL have in the UK you know.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7316 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 22):

Staying with LHR/FRA as just one of many examples. The days when BA and LH were the sole means of air travel between these two cities are long gone as they compete with the LCC's. We don't need or require a multi-presence on routes between 'airports 'within Europe anymore because we have a 'multi-presence' between the cities themselves via several airports. In the shape of legacy and LCC carriers.

Does it really matter anymore if BA and LH cooperate on LHR/FRA on the competitive front ?

So what if they alternate shuttles on larger equipment and save money. They are not going to drive people to the LCC's by pricing themselves out of the market are they ? They may well be able to reduce certain fares on the route.

I believe the European carriers can cooperate on intra-European routes across the board without compromising competition because of the LCC presence or hinder the workings of their respective alliances.

Legacy short-haul in Europe has been a disaster and there is no need for that.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
25 bestwestern : But earlier you said... Anyway - you neglect the bigger goal of both LH and BA on this route - traffic connecting to their respective hubs. If we fol
26 mikey72 : People will choose between the two for any long-haul plans regardless. I admit it is difficult to see how European legacy-carrier short-haul can be s
27 bestwestern : We are seeing ME carriers join alliances too - with rumours of Ethiad and Emirates heading towards Alliances.
28 SuperCaravelle : Yes, actually, because it means people from Frankfurt or London cannot choose anymore between BA or LH, which ultimately will be bad for their bank a
29 mikey72 : If I decide to fly LH long-haul from LHR via FRA what difference does it make which airline I get placed on (LH or BA) to FRA ? If I decide to fly BA
30 SuperCaravelle : It doesn't matter, no, if it's ad hoc. But if they start working together, prices will rise. Besides, it's a waste of a big plane, which is more expe
31 mikey72 : :-
32 SuperCaravelle : Not going to happen anytime soon. If it happens, airlines will start using biofuels like nothing else. But no law will ever be made prohibiting use of
33 mikey72 : Well I think you have overlooked many advantages and rather quickly dismissed the ones you have indentified as the current system of alliances, merge
34 incitatus : Less frequency is not necessarily more green. This thread seems to have started from a conclusion seeking a justification for it. True, two flights th
35 spink : It isn't going to save on fuel. I highly doubt that 3 737/320s use more fuel than 1 380 from LHR to FRA. The smaller planes tend to be much more cost
36 mikey72 : In my view frequency is more about time between flights than actual number of flights...the former being the important factor. So this is not less fr
37 mayor : Almost 20 years.........KL/NW in '93. In all of these "scenarios" all I can see happening is reduced employment for the airlines and their suppliers.
38 mikey72 : Well in terms of overall number of jobs in the airline industry as a whole.... globally that is going up and up. Where and why is because of the same
39 mayor : Yes, it's going up in the system we have, now.........you reduce frequency and put them on larger a/c.......or reduce the number of airlines, isn't t
40 mikey72 : Don't confuse what I suggest with a total reorganization of global air travel, just a tweek of the alliances. (see quote below) Besides....CDG-AMS, F
41 SuperCaravelle : Yeah but crucially not CDG-FRA or AMS-FRA. That's the point, if you're combining the three major airline groups in one alliance, those routes will be
42 ASA : none taken, rutankrd. but how is that relevant here?
43 rutankrd : Its relevant in that part of Mikeys argument that pooling and reintroduction of the IATA system within the EU would lead to beneficial slot usage at
44 DeltaMD90 : The scary part is the average person that has no idea how the air transportation system works might actually agree with this line of thinking...
45 Burkhard : What I see to happen is that both will no longer fly such a route on own material, but buy capacity from an operator who operates on behalf of them.
46 DLPMMM : It is regulation borne out of such over-simplistic logic used by government functionaries that lead to long term harm to both the consumer and to ind
47 bobloblaw : Sounds like no alliances just individual codeshares and JVs. What youre proposing isnt one big alliance. Its no big alliance, just a bunch of little
48 BlueJuice : No offense but the arguments sound very much ones like those of a university student who has attended a few macro economic classes. While in theory yo
49 flyguy89 : What makes you think it's not efficient as it is? In the LHR-FRA example that you're using, there are two different airlines with two different custo
50 CapEd388 : I appreciate that you are trying to learn more about the airline industry, which is something that I am always trying to do as well, but I just feel
51 DeltaMD90 : I don't think this has been brought up: Mikey... I'm not sure which idea you are getting with, but I'll present 2 scenarios: BA and LH decide to colla
52 mikey72 : I understand and totally agree with the economic reasoning behind the current system. But... I just cannot accept that in the future the current syst
53 rutankrd : The most unnecessary flights are those made on award points irrespective of alliance.Redemption rates need to become more and more expensive. Fact is
54 Quokkas : Airlines already co-operate both within and across alliances. For example, QF is a member of One World yet it codeshares with AF, a member of Sky Team
55 cmf : Actually there is. They are still getting paid per passenger. There was no suggestion to change the number of destinations. Only to consolidate fligh
56 DLPMMM : No Mikey, you are wrong. It will always be about the money. Only if they make increased profits from upsizing. It may be more profitable to contunue
57 mikey72 : I'm all for capitalism but how does capitalism help QF's long-haul ops for example ? Or as is the case with QF we consider simply jumping into bed wi
58 DLPMMM : Capitalism and economics is not there to help any particular airline. If QF can't manage their long haul network, then they should either stop flying
59 incitatus : You are taking the 'wantonly' as a foregone conclusion. Just because I am bored in NY over a weekend I can shell out several hundred dollars, get on
60 mikey72 : The aircraft is going anyway whether you're on it or not. I have flown to places in the past just for lunch so i'm no angel. For what purpose you cho
61 DLPMMM : So you are saying that AA/DL/VS/BA don't have multiple departures around the same times? There are 17 daily flights from JFK to LHR between BA,AA,DL,
62 Post contains images incitatus : Flying 200 lb twice across the Atlantic as incremental weight costs about 80 USD in fuel. Then if enough people do it, it is sufficient to become a d
63 mikey72 : ? 12 of those 17 flights are in cooperation and BA have already stated the A380 will be operating JFK.
64 mikey72 : Again...JFK/LHR is dominated by AA and BA which operate a J.V on the route. * marginal * benefit........we will have to agree to disagree on that one
65 mogandoCI : The way to control over-frequency has to come from government - because private enterprise would never do it themselves 1. restrict prime time slots,
66 Viscount724 : There are dozens of cases where two (or more) major hotels are across the street from each other. I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
67 DLPMMM : There were requirements that those airlines give up slots on those routes to foster competition in those limited markets in order to get their merger
68 mikey72 : You mean like Fairmont, Hilton, Sofitel, Intercon, Ritz-Carlton etc etc
69 incitatus : No we won't. I have seen a study that shows that high density wide-body aircraft do have a cost per mile advantage compared to narrow-bodies and that
70 SuperCaravelle : So, what would happen. Let's assume there are 8 major international hubs (there might be some smaller ones but not important for sake of argument) in
71 cmf : Then they would have done that already, or? Larger planes designed for similar range are more effective. Flexibility is a red hearing. If that was th
72 strfyr51 : Before De-regulation When you booked a trip many times your flight might incluse 2 airplanes and 2 airlines. This was also before the Hub and Spoke Ro
73 spink : There aren't any large planes designed for short range. There hasn't been a large plane with sub-TATL range for a long time. The closest thing to wha
74 mikey72 : QF was one of the founding members of Oneworld yet QF is now in negotiation with one of the very airlines that has changed the landscape so much for t
75 cmf : That is ignoring how many airlines outside US "always" operated. Your objections are valid in current environment, not in the given scenario. When ev
76 mikey72 : Yes I agree with that and it is my main point regardless of whether my own personal theories are flawed. Forgive me but none of the examples you use
77 cmf : Today it is QF and EK. Tomorrow it will be other airlines. SOP. OW does not stand or fall with QF. This means more to the hub&spoke vs p2p argume
78 bestwestern : Mikey - your arguement is flawed. Sorry. EK is solving QF's long haul problems. QF shorthaul is profitable. Here you propose gutting short haul in fav
79 spink : I could see ultra long narrow bodies, but I just don't see short range widebodies. Simply too much wasted space both in cargo deck and crown. To solv
80 mikey72 : I can accept that. Yes it is - a good thing. Again.... This is precisely what QF and EK are doing but I simply don't agree that the buck will stop he
81 incitatus : In general that is a correct statement. As it has been pointed out, wide-bodies have space in the cargo belly that might be wasted. The economics of
82 spink : Right, the only way I can see it being viable is a double decker with the main floor pushed down or basically a very oval to almost rounded square cr
83 cmf : You don't see short range WB after reducing frequency by half? Only a very limited number of passengers are so demanding on times they will not fly b
84 rutankrd : I don't see the issues with a heavy on short haul what so ever. The Airbus A300 was specifically designed for that role in the late 60s the B762 late
85 mayor : Are you sure? DL pioneered the hub and spoke concept in ATL in 1955, out of necessity. Being a small, basically "regional" airline at the time, DL sa
86 incitatus : One-abreast? Why even bring it up? A large capacity 1-abreast would have another problem - how to place an aisle in the cabin without making the cros
87 avek00 : IATA basically served as the one global alliance for many years.
88 cmf : Because it is apparently what it takes to make some people understand that the argument they are making isn't adding up. The world is multi-dimension
89 incitatus : One-abreast aircraft does not add up, so I can't see how it added to the discussion. It is just silly.
90 Post contains images cmf : You're missing the point. Yes one abreast is silly. It is as silly as suggesting that no matter the number of passengers the current NB width is opti
91 DLPMMM : But you missed the point that it silly for Airbus or Boeing to develop a whole new wide body short range aircraft that just a few airlines will buy i
92 cmf : It would not be a few airlines and just a few trunk routes under the premises given. Also, I can't help but wonder why you feel the need to introduce
93 incitatus : I never said that. I said that 1. With wide-body aircraft configured as long-haul, narrow bodies have lower cost per available mile. 2. With high-den
94 cmf : If you object to my use of one abreast then you need to keep the context where it was used. Your condescending attitude apart, tell that to those who
95 ytz : Let's prohibit driving and make public transit mandatory. 24/7. On a societal level, that would do far more to reduce fossil fuel consumption than a s
96 ytz : Not necessarily. How short a range and how much reduced frequency are we talking about? That's the question. For example, in my neck of the woods, Ai
97 cmf : The numbers given was going from 19 to 10, i.e. half. There is a big gap between the distances where other forms of transportation is competitive and
98 ytz : I know if that was the case in my neck of the woods, demand for flying would drop a fair bit. True. But the vast majority of cases where you have hou
99 cmf : I think you're wrong. I doubt you will find many passengers who will avoid traveling because the options are 7:00 or 9:00 instead of 7:00, 8:00 or 9:
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...
DFW And Shanghai Sign Global-Alliance posted Thu Mar 19 2009 14:09:24 by UAL747
Global Alliance Screensavers posted Tue Apr 10 2007 13:31:51 by Paomien
Global Alliance posted Thu Aug 3 2006 23:33:50 by Aeronuts
Global Alliance....what Happend? posted Sat May 14 2005 10:52:33 by RootsAir
TAM In A Global Alliance? posted Tue Apr 18 2000 21:25:04 by AF-A319
Canadian Airlines And One World Alliance No More posted Tue Mar 14 2000 18:28:07 by Doug
AF-DL Launch Their Global Alliance In... posted Sat Jan 29 2000 15:58:38 by AF Cabin Crew
El Al To Found 4th Global Airline Alliance posted Tue Aug 17 2010 07:39:27 by castroprauxel
One World, Sky Team Future? No Alliance Airlines? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 13:52:22 by B773A346
Why Isn't Air One In Star Alliance? posted Mon Mar 24 2008 20:40:13 by BOStonsox