Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jet Airways To Axe BRU-MAA (?)  
User currently offline330lover From Belgium, joined Jul 2008, 604 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7148 times:

In GDS Galileo, no more flights appear after 14NOV. So it looks as if Jet Airways will suspend these flights.
Not really surprising, as I always found this a strange routing, but hey, what do I know...

Anyone can confirm this?


Britten Norman Islander VP-FBR on Falkland Islands. THAT'S FLYING!
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2893 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

Availability for the flight is coming zeroed out on Amadeus and 9Ws website

Still unconfirmed although the move makes sense on 2 counts

A terminator to BRU is not possible with the JFK drop, the MAA aircraft would operate a terminator hence a operational move cheaper to fly pax to BOM or DEL on 737 s

second they maybe de Hubbing BRU in preparation for a MUC hub

karan


User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 1):
second they maybe de Hubbing BRU in preparation for a MUC hub

I hate to have to say this, but every time it is mentioned, I really ought to. There is no room for a hub at MUC. Simply, there are so few slots available.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6929 times:

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 1):
second they maybe de Hubbing BRU in preparation for a MUC hub

They're dehubbing BRU because it's a terrible idea for an Indian carrier to have a Belgian (or German, or Yugoslavian, or whatever) hub. I'm surprised it lasted this long--even AI gave up on the FRA hub.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2893 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6888 times:

Not at all disagreeing on the bad decision of the euro hub especially in expensive airports like MUC or FRA , I just gave it as an opinion towards the reason of dropping the MAA BRU flight

But the main reason as per me is still the first one which is , it does not make operational sense to have an aircraft operating a terminator on that sector especially since JFK was dropped

karan


User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 3):
They're dehubbing BRU because it's a terrible idea for an Indian carrier to have a Belgian (or German, or Yugoslavian, or whatever) hub. I'm surprised it lasted this long--even AI gave up on the FRA hub.

Because ULH works right? You have been bashing Jet for years for not embracing ULH, still ULH hardly works wih only a few very rich carriers in the Gulf making it work.

Now given that ULH does not work for indian carriers (low yields, too much competion), what do you suggest? Indian carriers becoming feeders to European and Gulf airlines???

Seriously if Jet's BRU hub unravels, it was not for the lack of trying. It may have failed, may have been a bad decision in hindsight, but no-one could have been 100% sure (not even the armchair CEO's) that the whole strategy would have been a failure.

I say bravo for Jet Airways for trying to be the better Indian airline and trying to succesfully compete against powerful against powerful other airlines (BA, LH, AF, Emirates...)


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 5):
You have been bashing Jet for years for not embracing ULH, still ULH hardly works wih only a few very rich carriers in the Gulf making it work.

I've never criticized 9W for not embracing ULH, but for setting up anything but an Indian hub. But let's say it should pursue ULH. Why does it work for the Gulf carriers? Where do most of those passengers go from North America on those carriers? Right to 9W's turf, that it (and AI and ultimately the GOI) has basically handed over on a silver platter to EK/EY/QR while it pursued becoming a tertiary Belgian carrier. And what is one of the very few things people pay a premium for? Nonstop flights. Indians, and less so others, will pay a premium to fly nonstop. But when you add this BRU stop, your product becomes just as valuable, ie cheap, as any other one stop on EY/EK/QR/TK/BA/AF/LH/etc.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 5):
no-one could have been 100% sure (not even the armchair CEO's) that the whole strategy would have been a failure.

I was 100% sure before, during, and after. Anyone with a modicum of network experience would know a scissor hub is a fool's errand, much like the ludicrous "relief hub". 9W missed an opportunity to grow and own an India focused international network, and now it has to undo the BRU operation to return to where it should have been all along.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6042 times:

With only 2 routes left through BRU, 9W might as well serve DEL-EWR/BOM-YYZ nonstop. It won't be much of a hub anymore...


Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently onlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 826 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6022 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 7):
9W might as well serve DEL-EWR/BOM-YYZ nonstop

I think you meant the reverse pairing, DEL-YYZ and BOM-EWR. I don't think DEL-YYZ can be sustained from a yield perspective. There is very little Business class demand.


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6019 times:

Quoting golfradio (Reply 8):
I think you meant the reverse pairing, DEL-YYZ and BOM-EWR. I don't think DEL-YYZ can be sustained from a yield perspective. There is very little Business class demand.

Correct, that was a typo.

Although, now that I think about it, both DEL-YYZ and BOM-EWR have competition. BOM-EWR in particular has heavy competition, and I don't know whether DEL-YYZ would be able to sustain 2 carriers when it can barely sustain 1 as is. Perhaps doing it backwards would be a better idea.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5995 times:

9W needs to decide on an alliance first, and then evaluate one-stop overseas hub versus non-stop India hub for flights to NA. 9W needs B787 delivered(10 on order) before it can embark on non-stop India hub strategy for NA.

Premium on non-stop EWR-BOM RT and EWR-DEL RT over one-stop varies from 7 to 22% depending on month of travel(higher premium in Dec).


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
I've never criticized 9W for not embracing ULH, but for setting up anything but an Indian hub.

At the time the BRU hub was set up, Indian airport infrastructure wasn't adequate enough for a home-grown one. That is, however, no longer the case. I do think the future of the BRU hub will depend, in part, on which alliance Jet may join.

If Jet joins Star, and if Air Canada and Brussels Airlines do go ahead with their rumored plans to have the former operate YYZ-BRU and the later BRU-YUL, and if the economics of ULH are not that attractive (yes, lots of if, I know), then perhaps it makes sense to turn BRU into a terminator, with continuation on code-shares to YYZ, YUL, IAD, EWR, JFK and ORD.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 11):
At the time the BRU hub was set up, Indian airport infrastructure wasn't adequate enough for a home-grown one. That is, however, no longer the case. I do think the future of the BRU hub will depend, in part, on which alliance Jet may join.

If Jet joins Star, and if Air Canada and Brussels Airlines do go ahead with their rumored plans to have the former operate YYZ-BRU and the later BRU-YUL, and if the economics of ULH are not that attractive (yes, lots of if, I know), then perhaps it makes sense to turn BRU into a terminator, with continuation on code-shares to YYZ, YUL, IAD, EWR, JFK and ORD.

After interviewing a senior 9W manager last week, I've found that holding breath over 9W joining an alliance is a waste of time. Goyal appears to want to feed and work with all 3 alliances, yielding the maximum flexibility to 9W. Think of them as the AS of India.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 11):
At the time the BRU hub was set up, Indian airport infrastructure wasn't adequate enough for a home-grown one. That is, however, no longer the case. I do think the future of the BRU hub will depend, in part, on which alliance Jet may join.

I've heard all the reasons for the hub; none of them make much sense. Airlines have been hubbing at dumps for decades, whether it was the old HKG, SVO, LHR, JFK, CAI, MEX, AUH, and on and on. Some passengers may have avoided connecting in a BOM or DEL hub, probably rare at a competitive price, but the local passengers have no choice, and it's the local passengers that 9W should have been going after and building loyalty. The local pax worth having are willing to pay a premium for a nonstop, but w/ a BRU stop, 9W is just like any other option out there, rather than the preferred local carrier that it should have been.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJOYA380B747 From India, joined Mar 2005, 570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5869 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 10):
9W needs to decide on an alliance first, and then evaluate one-stop overseas hub versus non-stop India hub for flights to NA. 9W needs B787 delivered(10 on order) before it can embark on non-stop India hub strategy for NA.

Premium on non-stop EWR-BOM RT and EWR-DEL RT over one-stop varies from 7 to 22% depending on month of travel(higher premium in Dec).

I am very much interested to know, yet my posts remain mostly unanswered, regarding the fact that the A333s are soon to be delivered to 9W. I don't know how anything else might make sense with more aircrafts being added, coupled to a JFK and BRU pullout, unless they are shifting hubs to another Euro hub eventually with a move to some alliance.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
Why does it work for the Gulf carriers? Where do most of those passengers go from North America on those carriers? Right to 9W's turf, that it (and AI and ultimately the GOI) has basically handed over on a silver platter to EK/EY/QR while it pursued becoming a tertiary Belgian carrier.

With Indian aviation rules and the GOI's way of mishandling the commercial aviation sector. I feel this cannot be changed in the near future at all. The only way 9W can measure up against the Gulf carriers, however little it may be, they have to team up with an Euro carrier.



If it wasn't for AI and those money mongers sitting in the parliament, 9W would have been as big as SQ...:(
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting JOYA380B747 (Reply 14):
I don't know how anything else might make sense with more aircrafts being added, coupled to a JFK and BRU pullout, unless they are shifting hubs to another Euro hub eventually with a move to some alliance.

9W's request for route authority to MUC point to a possible entry into Star. Time will tell.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Per another post on this forum (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5574487/), the MUC airport website shows a scheduled BLR-MUC-BLR routing starting 14-March-2013. Is that another sign?


Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5280 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
I've never criticized 9W for not embracing ULH, but for setting up anything but an Indian hub. But let's say it should pursue ULH. Why does it work for the Gulf carriers? Where do most of those passengers go from North America on those carriers? Right to 9W's turf, that it (and AI and ultimately the GOI) has basically handed over on a silver platter to EK/EY/QR while it pursued becoming a tertiary Belgian carrier. And what is one of the very few things people pay a premium for? Nonstop flights. Indians, and less so others, will pay a premium to fly nonstop. But when you add this BRU stop, your product becomes just as valuable, ie cheap, as any other one stop on EY/EK/QR/TK/BA/AF/LH/etc.

Why does it work for Gulf carriers and no-one else? Cause they cross-subsidize between flights and have a network effect that basically enables them to become a one-stop shop for 3/4 of the population of the world therefore creating loyalty and profits (for some)

Indians will pay a premium? I was under the impression through my reading and some anecdotal evidence that US-America traffic is big but mainly consists of VFR traffic. As such for example, the Indian student, the indian family visiting their son or daughter or the indian son or daughter coming back for a wedding is definitely not interested by non-stop for a premium especially when a stop-over only results in a 1-2 hour travel time difference if that given that any Indian airline would be hard pressed to serve all the main American gateways like LH, BA, AF and Emirates recently have been doing.

The truth is that any Indian carrier would be hard pressed to catch up now. 20 years ago with good infrastructure and an amazing supportive government probably.


Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
I was 100% sure before, during, and after. Anyone with a modicum of network experience would know a scissor hub is a fool's errand, much like the ludicrous "relief hub". 9W missed an opportunity to grow and own an India focused international network, and now it has to undo the BRU operation to return to where it should have been all along.

Air India has been failing miserably, Kingfisher don't get me started, what makes 9W so special that it could have actually managed to create an india focused international network. Should it have built it's own airport or bought its own airport? Yes it's easy to criticize but internationlly, none of the indian airlines have succeeded.

9W has been the most succesful out of the 3 but obviously that was not enough!


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Quoting golfradio (Reply 8):
I think you meant the reverse pairing, DEL-YYZ and BOM-EWR. I don't think DEL-YYZ can be sustained from a yield perspective. There is very little Business class demand.

No, it cannot. There is a reason why AI keeps pushing back the re-launch of YYZDEL. In fact, they haven't even bothered to route the operation via a European city like they did with Chicago and New York!!

I can't even imagine that the yields are anything but dogs on the ORD-DEL, EWR-BOM and JFK-DEL-BOM sectors, either.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 9):
Although, now that I think about it, both DEL-YYZ and BOM-EWR have competition. BOM-EWR in particular has heavy competition, and I don't know whether DEL-YYZ would be able to sustain 2 carriers when it can barely sustain 1 as is. Perhaps doing it backwards would be a better idea.

Canada-India has an insane amount of competition, and it is always about price, price, price. Moreover, the population size is FAR smaller to work with. US-India nonstop flights at least pull from a larger demographic.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 11):
At the time the BRU hub was set up, Indian airport infrastructure wasn't adequate enough for a home-grown one. That is, however, no longer the case. I do think the future of the BRU hub will depend, in part, on which alliance Jet may join.

Excellent point. Things have changed over the years for Indian airports, especially DEL.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
Indians will pay a premium? I was under the impression through my reading and some anecdotal evidence that US-America traffic is big but mainly consists of VFR traffic. As such for example, the Indian student, the indian family visiting their son or daughter or the indian son or daughter coming back for a wedding is definitely not interested by non-stop for a premium especially when a stop-over only results in a 1-2 hour travel time difference if that given that any Indian airline would be hard pressed to serve all the main American gateways like LH, BA, AF and Emirates recently have been doing.

Oy. That's not necessarily accurate.

You have to remember that there are still plenty of business pursuits in India, and often times corporations will permit premium class travel given the long duration of the journey. There are also a lot of wealthy Indian-born professionals living and residing in the United States who will pay for a premium class ticket to India.

Put simply, it's a misconception that all US-India flights are carrying bottom-yield VFR and student traffic from low/middle class income brackets paying dirt cheap fares. If you've ever tried to book a flight to India during high season, even 9-12 months out, the fares are astronomically high, yet the flights are ALWAYS packed.

STILL, the reality is that year-round sustainability for nonstop flights to India is economically challenging for several reasons:

1. Stage length is very long (leading to high costs for fuel, crew, aircraft, maintenance, etc).
2. The markets are highly seasonal. Nobody wants to travel to India in the hot summer months. When demand sloughs off, yet costs remain the same, the route bleeds money.
3. Competition is intense (and compounded by the presence of privately-owned/government-propped carriers that hold superior advantages over publicly-traded ones). There is no debating this.

All of these factors exist INDEPENDENTLY of the fact that yes, the vast majority of North American residents of Indian origin/citizenship are price-discretionary travelers.

However, I maintain that there is still a decent amount of premium demand for flights to India from North America, however the vast majority of it hails from the US, not Canada.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
The truth is that any Indian carrier would be hard pressed to catch up now. 20 years ago with good infrastructure and an amazing supportive government probably.

Yes. India has missed the boat completely on establishing a robust network/flag carrier capable of operating domestic and intercontinental flights at a profitable level, and it is indeed at the fault of the GOI and infrastructural lag.

I blame all of the failures of Indian carriers and their dismal financial outlooks solely on poor government policy, period.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
Air India has been failing miserably, Kingfisher don't get me started, what makes 9W so special that it could have actually managed to create an india focused international network. Should it have built it's own airport or bought its own airport? Yes it's easy to criticize but internationlly, none of the indian airlines have succeeded.

Put simply, the Middle Eastern carriers have become the flag carriers for India.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
Why does it work for Gulf carriers and no-one else?

They have a lot of benefits, but most importantly, they have a huge growing market nearby called India. Most of the top flows beyond the Middle East from just about any destination West, ie Europe/Africa/North America, is to India. Indian carriers need to focus on and invest in getting that traffic back, not sinking it in a hub for Belgians.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):

Indians will pay a premium?

Passengers pay premiums for very few things; one of them is indeed nonstops. 9W, or any premium network Indian carrier, should be able to drive a premium among Indian passengers because of their schedule and loyalty program, particularly with a strong hub in DEL or BOM where there actually is premium demand. The premium passenger in DEL wanting to go to CDG, for example, will pay more for a nonstop versus the GCC carriers, and 9W should focus on that passenger. Even the lower end passengers indifferent to one stops provide a benefit. I looked at a random roundtrip CDGDEL, and the lowest nonstop roundtrip fare is $963. The lowest one stop is $767--there's that premium for nonstop again. In any case, spreading that $767 over a CDG-DXB-DEL routing means a yield of 8.3 cents. If 9W were to match that fare on a nonstop, the yield would be 9.4cents, or a 13% increase over the one stop. Again people prefer a nonstop, so with the better schedule and Indian point of sale loyalty, 9W could easily steal back those passengers from the GCC carriers. It's Indian carriers traffic to lose.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
The truth is that any Indian carrier would be hard pressed to catch up now. 20 years ago with good infrastructure and an amazing supportive government probably.

This is true, but again Indian carriers have the advantage of being where the traffic is. If 9W focused on building a hub in DEL since 2007, rather than BRU, it would have invested in the Indian market, rather than the Belgian one, and would have a ready to go hub the instant the new terminal in DEL opened. What do they have to show for 5 years invested in the BRU market? What if they invested the same in BOM/DEL?

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 17):
what makes 9W so special that it could have actually managed to create an india focused international network.

The same applies for AI/9W/KF--they all followed each other like lemmings over a cliff with nonsense ideas like a scissor hub in every corner of the planet. Had any of them invested in the Indian market consistently and focused on taking the traffic back from the GCC carriers--rather than recreating the GCC carriers' operation in bloody BEG/FRA/MUC/BRU--they'd be in a much better position now. That said, the GOI would do nothing to help regardless.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 18):
Put simply, the Middle Eastern carriers have become the flag carriers for India.

Thanks mostly to the GOI, but also to the Indian carriers who chased silly ideas like a PVG/BRU/BEG scissor hub or BLRSFO nonstops...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

The question mark can be deleted from the title - 9W has confirmed that this route will be canned.


Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4491 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
Passengers pay premiums for very few things; one of them is indeed nonstops. 9W, or any premium network Indian carrier, should be able to drive a premium among Indian passengers because of their schedule and loyalty program, particularly with a strong hub in DEL or BOM where there actually is premium demand. The premium passenger in DEL wanting to go to CDG, for example, will pay more for a nonstop versus the GCC carriers, and 9W should focus on that passenger. Even the lower end passengers indifferent to one stops provide a benefit. I looked at a random roundtrip CDGDEL, and the lowest nonstop roundtrip fare is $963. The lowest one stop is $767--there's that premium for nonstop again. In any case, spreading that $767 over a CDG-DXB-DEL routing means a yield of 8.3 cents. If 9W were to match that fare on a nonstop, the yield would be 9.4cents, or a 13% increase over the one stop. Again people prefer a nonstop, so with the better schedule and Indian point of sale loyalty, 9W could easily steal back those passengers from the GCC carriers. It's Indian carriers traffic to lose.

I agree on 0-14 hour journey that people will indeed a premium to fly non stop. Beyond that i.e. India- US distances it is very debatable: Losing 2 hours on a 22 hour journey is different than losing 2 hours on a 10 hour journey.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
The same applies for AI/9W/KF--they all followed each other like lemmings over a cliff with nonsense ideas like a scissor hub in every corner of the planet. Had any of them invested in the Indian market consistently and focused on taking the traffic back from the GCC carriers--rather than recreating the GCC carriers' operation in bloody BEG/FRA/MUC/BRU--they'd be in a much better position now. That said, the GOI would do nothing to help regardless.

I'm sorry but there is a reason why they did it, and a reason why the 777 LR have never worked in AI's fleet... The yields are just not there therefore the Scissor hub strategy.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
This is true, but again Indian carriers have the advantage of being where the traffic is. If 9W focused on building a hub in DEL since 2007, rather than BRU, it would have invested in the Indian market, rather than the Belgian one, and would have a ready to go hub the instant the new terminal in DEL opened. What do they have to show for 5 years invested in the BRU market? What if they invested the same in BOM/DEL?

They would have been more successful at capturing traffic to Europe, but struggling as much at being profitable to the US.

All in all you keep on ranting about scissor hubs but have no proof that ULH would work which makes your point moot.

I would argue that to compete against the Gulf airlines, Indian Airlines need to get into alliances ASAP, and start revenue sharing on flights to/from Europe and the US with their European partners. Once enough market share has been established within the target markets, then they should start attempting flying ULH. In the meantime there is nothing wrong about being strategic about these things... If you can't compete as is, try an alliance against with the lesser evil against your biggest enemy.


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3339 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4330 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):

9W's request for route authority to MUC point to a possible entry into Star. Time will tell.
Quoting Nimish (Reply 16):
Per another post on this forum (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5574487/), the MUC airport website shows a scheduled BLR-MUC-BLR routing starting 14-March-2013. Is that another sign?

or perhaps HYD-MUC?


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 22):
or perhaps HYD-MUC?

BLR-MUC is expected to be the first route.

I'd be surprised to see HYD-MUC considering that LH can't even sustain HYD-FRA.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 21):
I agree on 0-14 hour journey that people will indeed a premium to fly non stop. Beyond that i.e. India- US distances it is very debatable: Losing 2 hours on a 22 hour journey is different than losing 2 hours on a 10 hour journey.

No, nonstop pretty much always drives a premium. Consider EWR/LAXSIN--SQ can demand a premium for the nonstop versus the onestops. Whether that premium is enough to offset the increased costs is another story.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 21):
I'm sorry but there is a reason why they did it, and a reason why the 777 LR have never worked in AI's fleet... The yields are just not there therefore the Scissor hub strategy.

Adding a stop will tank yields, so the scissor hub strategy was a nonstarter from the get go. If there was such thing as a successful scissor hub there'd be more--any--of them around.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 21):
They would have been more successful at capturing traffic to Europe, but struggling as much at being profitable to the US.

They were going to struggle with a scissor hub regardless. Better to lose money on developing a market for passengers to/from India and market penetration among Indians than a sideshow in Belgium. If 9W is going to lose tens of millions of dollars, wouldn't it be best to do so building market share and awareness in India?

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 21):
In the meantime there is nothing wrong about being strategic about these things...

No but following a deadend strategy that every other Indian carrier was proposing, ie hubs in MUC/FRA/BEG/BRU/Timbuktu, is just a waste of resources. 9W should have slowly and aggressively added to its DEL network, increasing loyalty in India and taking back passengers from the GCC and European carriers with a wide network. A strong partnership with a EU carrier would have helped, and perhaps one ULH route to NYC to build a presence and get ahead of AI at the time. EY and QR have managed major majority-connecting operations out of shoe boxes; there's no reason 9W couldn't have created a majority-local operation at DEL that would have been ready to move into the new terminal and dialed up to increase connecting opportunities once the facilities came online.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3994 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
No, nonstop pretty much always drives a premium. Consider EWR/LAXSIN--SQ can demand a premium for the nonstop versus the onestops. Whether that premium is enough to offset the increased costs is another story.

Airlines set a premium for direct routes because they know that people will pay more for the travel time saving but there is very little evidence that it works for ULH. Talking of SQ, they only have 2 ULH flights which is not much. They also complement New-York with a one stop flight via FRA, Serve GIG via BCN, and IAH via DME. Now no-one can be sure of their strategy, or their incentive to do that other than picking up passengers, but it clearly shows that ULH hardly works even for arguably the best airline in the world. Once again by mentioning SQ u fail to convince anyone that ULH would work for any Indian carrier.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
Adding a stop will tank yields, so the scissor hub strategy was a nonstarter from the get go. If there was such thing as a successful scissor hub there'd be more--any--of them around.

Delta/Northwest in Amsterdam did seem to work. How about Delta and United at Narita Airport?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
They were going to struggle with a scissor hub regardless. Better to lose money on developing a market for passengers to/from India and market penetration among Indians than a sideshow in Belgium. If 9W is going to lose tens of millions of dollars, wouldn't it be best to do so building market share and awareness in India?

What is the lesser of the 2 evils? Loose loads of money or cut your losses by attempting to establish something which may or may not be succesful but you are not 100% sure?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
No but following a deadend strategy that every other Indian carrier was proposing, ie hubs in MUC/FRA/BEG/BRU/Timbuktu, is just a waste of resources. 9W should have slowly and aggressively added to its DEL network, increasing loyalty in India and taking back passengers from the GCC and European carriers with a wide network.

Given India's many failures in its industrial policies, it's hardly surprising that none of the Indian airlines have succeeded. Whilst the Indian government was trying to prop up Air India unsuccessfully, the Emirates and the Etihads grew with strong support. Your wishes would have involved many more resources, with very little probability of succes. So no that wouldnt have worked!


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2240 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3961 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 19):
This is true, but again Indian carriers have the advantage of being where the traffic is. If 9W focused on building a hub in DEL since 2007, rather than BRU, it would have invested in the Indian market, rather than the Belgian one, and would have a ready to go hub the instant the new terminal in DEL opened. What do they have to show for 5 years invested in the BRU market? What if they invested the same in BOM/DEL?

There were other extenuating circumstances that made things challenging for 9W. One being the lack of aircraft, two being the infrastructural challenges at Indian airports, three being its high cost structure, and four being the GOI protectionism of AI. It has always put the likes of 9W/IT at a disadvantage.

For one, the new T3 at DEL was not built at the time.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
No, nonstop pretty much always drives a premium. Consider EWR/LAXSIN--SQ can demand a premium for the nonstop versus the onestops. Whether that premium is enough to offset the increased costs is another story.

Sorry I'm going to be blunt here, but by saying that "whether that premium is enough to offset the increased costs is another story," you're adding a lot of skepticism to your own claims.

For the record, I would exercise caution with using the SQ ULH nonstops as supporting examples. It is no secret that the EWRSIN and LAXSIN routes struggle to achieve profitability/breakeven levels year-round. They've gone back and forth many times talking about reconfiguring the cabin from all-J back to mixed Y+ and J, etc.

I am one to believe that SQ does maintain these routes for glamour purposes and to cede traffic away from their European and Middle Eastern counterparts hoping that the rest of their network overcompensates for any losses.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
Adding a stop will tank yields, so the scissor hub strategy was a nonstarter from the get go. If there was such thing as a successful scissor hub there'd be more--any--of them around.

Not necessarily. The nonstop vs. one-stop factor is really measured on a case-by-case basis. If you use your very own SQ example, the data points are all over the map for the ULH routes to the Americas. SQ operates a one-stop flight from SIN to SFO via HKG, and it's their best performing routes. Their LAX-NRT-SIN routing also outperforms the nonstop LAX-SIN route most of the year.

On the other hand, their 1-stop IAH-DME-SIN route is their worst performing route in the Americas (although unsure about GRU-BCN-SIN).

My point is, ULH routes are not universally successful. It did not work for TG (LAX and JFK) and it is really not gaining much traction in India nor Pakistan (concentration of premium traffic is much less than HKG or SIN).

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):
Airlines set a premium for direct routes because they know that people will pay more for the travel time saving but there is very little evidence that it works for ULH. Talking of SQ, they only have 2 ULH flights which is not much. They also complement New-York with a one stop flight via FRA, Serve GIG via BCN, and IAH via DME. Now no-one can be sure of their strategy, or their incentive to do that other than picking up passengers, but it clearly shows that ULH hardly works even for arguably the best airline in the world. Once again by mentioning SQ u fail to convince anyone that ULH would work for any Indian carrier.

See my points above.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):
Delta/Northwest in Amsterdam did seem to work. How about Delta and United at Narita Airport?

Because Northwest was smart in formulating the first JBA with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):
Talking of SQ, they only have 2 ULH flights which is not much. They also complement New-York with a one stop flight via FRA, Serve GIG via BCN, and IAH via DME

I'm just talking about the yield, or the fare pax are willing to pay for various routing, and I guarantee people will pay a premium to fly EWR/LAXSIN nonstop versus one stop. The trick is finding enough people, to pay enough of a premium, to make the nonstop work.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):

Delta/Northwest in Amsterdam did seem to work. How about Delta and United at Narita Airport?

NRT is being wound down more than anything. DL/KL is a great relationship that 9W would do well to create in some respect, but DL only operates one flight beyond AMS--not the entire longhaul 'hub' as 9W did at BRU.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):

What is the lesser of the 2 evils? Loose loads of money or cut your losses by attempting to establish something which may or may not be succesful but you are not 100% sure?

I just don't see how losing millions in Belgium could ever be a good thing for an Indian carrier. It's almost comical--why BRU? Why not MUC? Or FCN? Or Neptune? How could it have ever in a million years competed with the GCC carriers? There was just no way from the start.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 25):
. Your wishes would have involved many more resources, with very little probability of succes. So no that wouldnt have worked!

I'm confident 9W would have lost as much or less simply flying where Indians want to go, nonstop. Not necessarily ULH--9W flies to 3 places in Europe. EK/QR/EY alone fly to dozens, and most of the top connections are to India.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 26):
There were other extenuating circumstances that made things challenging for 9W. One being the lack of aircraft, two being the infrastructural challenges at Indian airports, three being its high cost structure, and four being the GOI protectionism of AI. It has always put the likes of 9W/IT at a disadvantage.

I've heard all the excuses; the only one I kinda buy is the AI mess. No aircraft? Certainly not after 9W had a firesale and handed them off to other carriers. Poor infrastructure? Nothing new for many carriers. So now what does it have to show for its BRU hub? Do Belgians even know 9W exists?

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 26):

For the record, I would exercise caution with using the SQ ULH nonstops as supporting examples.

Again I'm talking about the yield only--passengers will pay a premium to fly BOMNYC nonstop versus via a one stop. SQ just can't find enough to pay enough of a premium to fly to SIN nonstop from EWR/LAX. But if 9W thought it could run 2 daily flights to NYC from India, via BRU, surely it could have consolidated those two flights into one single nonstop and probably lost less.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 26):
My point is, ULH routes are not universally successful. It did not work for TG (LAX and JFK) and it is really not gaining much traction in India nor Pakistan (concentration of premium traffic is much less than HKG or SIN).

I don't want to get hung up on ULH routes--dozens of carriers are hoovering up traffic to/from India to any number of places that Indian carriers can fly nonstop. The 332/333 can reach just about anything from Europe to Asia and Africa; why not start there?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSATexan From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 26):
Adding a stop will tank yields, so the scissor hub strategy was a nonstarter from the get go. If there was such thing as a successful scissor hub there'd be more--any--of them around.

Not necessarily. The nonstop vs. one-stop factor is really measured on a case-by-case basis. If you use your very own SQ example, the data points are all over the map for the ULH routes to the Americas. SQ operates a one-stop flight from SIN to SFO via HKG, and it's their best performing routes. Their LAX-NRT-SIN routing also outperforms the nonstop LAX-SIN route most of the year.

On the other hand, their 1-stop IAH-DME-SIN route is their worst performing route in the Americas (although unsure about GRU-BCN-SIN).

One point needs to be emphasized. SIN-HKG-SFO and LAX-NRT-SIN both benefit from strong O&D and business traffic in all sectors. IAH-DME-SIN as a one-stop flight is not so successful simply because the O&D between IAH-DME is not so strong.

In 9Ws case they chose to set up a scissor hub at BRU that basically has minimal to non existent O&D or business ties to DEL, BOM, AMD, MAA, BLR, HYD etc. Precisely for this reason I have to strongly agree with MaverickM11 that this particular scissor hub strategy at BRU was a non starter to begin with. If all 9W intended to do was to funnel passengers from all points in India to a multitude of destinations in North America having an Indian hub (preferably DEL) would have been the best solution. If all of your passengers are going from India to USA/Canada, why make them change planes in Europe when you can do that more cost effectively in India itself?

Indian domestic market has excessive capacity. Some of this excessive capacity could have been used to funnel North America bound passengers to their Delhi hub. This would have increased their profitability in the domestic sector. BRU as a scissor hub was only an operational expense that could have been mitigated by leveraging their Delhi hub. 9W has the setup to run an efficient hub at DEL without having to spend an additional dime on a scissor hub.

I am not going to delve into the economics of ULH flights. But I must say this though, the RT prices from North America to India in Y is closing in on 2K USD (other than when Eithad runs 600$ round trips) or between 90K-100K INR. This current fare has been the most expensive fare in a long time. With this kind of price and no additional overheads due to a stopover in Europe, I would certainly argue that non-stop flights from DEL to North America have a better shot at being sucessful.


User currently offlinehohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

No matter what 9W does, scissor hub at BRU or elsewhere or nonstop, they are going to attract only a certain amount of passengers in India. Primarily BOM and DEL and smaller cities who have none or limited international service. Passengers (especially business class or premium economy) from the other major and mid major cities who have good links to Europe or Middle East, would not necessarily choose a transit at BOM or DEL, unless the prices are lower or if there is another reason for them to fly 9W, like frequent flyer miles in an alliance. So for 9W it is important to join an alliance to attract the alliance flyers and then hope for the best.

User currently offlinevinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 27):
I'm just talking about the yield, or the fare pax are willing to pay for various routing, and I guarantee people will pay a premium to fly EWR/LAXSIN nonstop versus one stop. The trick is finding enough people, to pay enough of a premium, to make the nonstop work.

The trick is indeed to find enough people to pay enough of a premium. Highly unlikely for such long flights to be able to find enough customers to make the economics of ULH work. A one stop option via the Gulf or Europe is only marginally more incovenient and therefore hardly justify the price difference implied by costly ULH routes

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 27):
I don't want to get hung up on ULH routes--dozens of carriers are hoovering up traffic to/from India to any number of places that Indian carriers can fly nonstop. The 332/333 can reach just about anything from Europe to Asia and Africa; why not start there?

That I agree! 9W probably got obsessed by the potential between North America and India and forgot that there is a whole world beside the Americas.

Quoting SATexan (Reply 28):
If all of your passengers are going from India to USA/Canada, why make them change planes in Europe when you can do that more cost effectively in India itself?

Because it is cheaper, because Brussels or any European city is not such a detour (Practically and Psychologically) compared to any Indian hub, because they probably got an amazing deal from brussels airport...

Quoting hohd (Reply 29):
Passengers (especially business class or premium economy) from the other major and mid major cities who have good links to Europe or Middle East, would not necessarily choose a transit at BOM or DEL, unless the prices are lower or if there is another reason for them to fly 9W, like frequent flyer miles in an alliance. So for 9W it is important to join an alliance to attract the alliance flyers and then hope for the best.

That's the thing. Not only are most passengers (including business passengers) price sensitive, also there is no compelling reason to transit either via Delhi or Bombay as you said unless service is massively better (which does not appear to be case) or the there is an incentive.

Point is when you travel for so long, 3h travel time is not going to make you feel any better at arrival. You still be tired, you still will be dehydrated, you still won't be able to work at full capacity. That is why the premium demand for a non-stop route is just not that high at all!


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...
Jet Airways Tostart Service From MAA And DEL To SI posted Sat Oct 29 2005 06:41:54 by Sam737
Jet Airways Postpones BOM-BRU-EWR To July End posted Tue Jun 14 2005 00:11:31 by LAXDESI
Jet Airways To Suspend JFK Flights posted Tue Jun 26 2012 00:19:19 by psimpson
Jet Airways To Fly To Milan. Leases 5 A330-300's! posted Mon Sep 20 2010 22:34:07 by jayeshrulz
United - Jet Airways To Codeshare And FF Partner posted Mon May 19 2008 10:32:05 by LAXintl
Jet Airways To Make MXP A Hub posted Wed Apr 9 2008 07:31:10 by Behramjee
Starting Jan.5, Jet Airways To Doha, KWI, BAH posted Sun Dec 16 2007 10:38:44 by QatarA340
Jet Airways To Start BOM-PVG-SFO In Feb. 2008 posted Sun Oct 28 2007 20:27:41 by LAXDESI
Now Jet Airways To JFK posted Tue Sep 18 2007 17:33:56 by Flying lsd
India's Jet Airways To The Gulf posted Fri Sep 14 2007 23:37:01 by KissK