dkny From Ethiopia, joined Mar 2004, 729 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2900 times:
Noticed ET operating ADD-YYZ non stop on it's Monday flight last week, and today Oct 1 as well. If it can be done why route the friday flight through FCO or is it because they have a light load on Mondays?
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2361 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2505 times:
Quoting polaris (Reply 2): Interesting. At service launch, wasn't Ethiopian claiming they were overbooked and needed more frequencies to Toronto?
YUP and a few had their shorts in a huge knot about it. Loads have been ok but not sold out by any stretch of the means. Will take a while to build the route. You know the government isn't as stupid in this case as people think they are, or as the government proves they are in other cases lol. There is a spreadsheet that lists arrivals by country, route, airline and final destination if known. If there was daily volume through this route they would either have started with more, or be prone to add more frequencies readily.
And they know by arrivals how many tourists/business people/connecting passengers are being added by a route. Someone can stand on a soapbox and scream they need frequencies (no names given) and not be demonstrating it by the core numbers. So it is clearly known and a good guess can be made if a route is helping to add new visitors to Canada or not, or just creaming them off of other routes. If the latter there really is no net benefit just a change of route and pattern. However, if the numbers clearly show an increase then the government has a duty to add more and usually does.
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2256 times:
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 3): YUP and a few had their shorts in a huge knot about it. Loads have been ok but not sold out by any stretch of the means. Will take a while to build the route. You know the government isn't as stupid in this case as people think they are, or as the government proves they are in other cases
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 3): And they know by arrivals how many tourists/business people/connecting passengers are being added by a route. Someone can stand on a soapbox and scream they need frequencies (no names given) and not be demonstrating it by the core numbers.
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 4): is there somewhat of a premium demand for this route?. If not, if it's solely a 13-15 hour VFR route, I give it no more than 2 years.....
No route with a daily frequency will be able to get much premium or business traffic. People like to travel when people like to travel. A 2 weekly frequency (potentially one-stop one way) will lose out to every other option, particularly when there are 1-stop options offered by KL, LH etc.
The government may not be stupid, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that the route will be taking a beating because of the lack of frequencies.
But what do I know. You know someone who might know? Michael Trethaway, (http://www.intervistas.com/?page_id=2817) the President of InterVISTAS Consulting, who states the following:
"Today airlines need to have daily service. You cannot attract the business travellers if you do not have a daily service. The meeting got done on Tuesday, a couple of days early, but I have to hang around until Thursday until the next flight. If it is only three times a week, you have to wait one or two days or maybe you will be lucky on the day you want to go. You cannot sell business tickets that way. It has to be daily service. "
Just a hunch, but I think he knows a thing or two about the industry, what with people paying him good money to do his job.
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 4): Never trust company managers. They usually talk out of their a**es.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 3): Someone can stand on a soapbox and scream they need frequencies (no names given) and not be demonstrating it by the core numbers.
I'm getting used to smugness on this board, but sometimes its better to think things through before posting. Its kinda stupid to say that an airline is struggling when it's not allowed to compete on the same footing as the competition. LH and KL have daily flights running on that route. ET doesn't. AC couldn't make YYZ-DEL work in the pre-EK days with a daily frequency. How in the world can anyone expect ET to compete when its been set up at a disadvantage?
If I want to fly on X or Y day (and lets face it, people who work aren't as flexible as pensioners or students), would I deliberately add or take away a couple of days just to fly ET, or would I take the first available flight (on LH or KL or whatever?)
Let them compete on equal footing and the market alone will be the judge. Right now, the government is impeding the airline's ability to compete (basically interfering in its operations by not letting it adopt whatever strategy suits it) and then judging it on the results. The results are unsurprising. In fact, I pretty much stated that this was bound to happen. It was that obvious. Using it as evidence... suggests that the government can count on not a few useful ...errr..what was that term the commies used ... to do their cheerleading.
ElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 3): So it is clearly known and a good guess can be made if a route is helping to add new visitors to Canada or not, or just creaming them off of other routes
What does this mean? If ET takes ADD bound passengers off LH or KL, it is the government's mandate to stop it? If an ADD bound pax doesn't fly through AMS, is it the government's mandate to make sure that he gets back to flying through AMS?
What country are we living in? Soviet Canuckistan? "Thou shall fly only European airlines. Others be damned." ?!
Or more specifically, did you think through the implications of what you are typing? Of course the market is finite. All markets are finite. Competition brings efficiency to the market. That is the whole point of competition. Otherwise, all you really need is one supplier of everything (which country does that remind you of? I m thinking North Korea). Its kind of like arguing that the government should keep Nordstrom out because they might cannibalize the Bay, as if it is incumbent on Nordstrom to prove that there is a market out there that is unserved and needs serving.
Let Nordstrom come. If the market doesnt like them, they will go away. The same applies to airlines. If KL or LH get cannibalized, so be it. Consumer rules. Well, its generally better for the economy when they do. Ask India. Or China.
Oops. Yeah, I meant without. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): What frequency did they ask for originally? You imply it was more than 2 per week but I can't recall.
I recall a press release around the time of the announcement that stated that they wanted more frequency.
Ethiopian inaugural and consequent flights to Toronto are overbooked, which is a rare occurrence on new routes. "We are only given landing rights for two weekly flights. Considering the huge traffic that exists between Canada and Ethiopia/Africa, two weekly flights cannot adequately serve the travelling public," added CEO Tewolde. "I hope we will be allowed more weekly landing rights in the coming few months so that we can serve the traveling public with better frequencies and more weekly capacity."
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): In any case, there's no way ADD could justify daily frequency.
Unsurprisingly, I take issue with the idea that ADD should have to 'justify' a daily frequency for O&D traffic, if only because its two main competitors on the route don't have to justify O&D traffic on their routes. I mean, how many people actually get off at AMS. Or Netherlands for that matter. Enough to justify the current frequencies?
If the goal is to increase direct links and diversify Canada's aviation portfolio,which is the claim I have heard quite often around here, then justifications are irrelevant - the market will be the ultimate justifier/judge/jury/prosecuter/benefactor. If, on the other hand, the goal is to protect the likes of KL and LH, then the policy of justificaiton makes sense, but only if the same criteria of O&D is not applied to them. Once it is, they themselves are on tenuous ground, especially if you factor in the metal neutral revenue-sharing policy between AC/LH.
My main objection is that the current situation isn't a level playing field, therefore using whatever criteria we're using is about as accurate as trying to read tea leaves. Which makes one wonder what some of the comments above are all about.
As an aside, I just noticed that ET is actually a profitable airline. Quite an achievement given the statement above that the managers are talking out of ...not their mouths.
Forget soap boxes, Canadians mght want to actually look into issues before shooting their mouthes off, eh?
ETinCaribe From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Yes, ET's CEO stated he wanted more frequency. Probably not daily though. Even IAD was not daily year around. He will probably get his wishes soon but till then, loads may be impacted. Especially ET knows it is never a level playing field, so I hope all this figures in their calculus...
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
ElPistolero, I couldn't agree with your thoughts and comments more. The Canadian government has a history and a habit of manipulating demand by limiting frequencies (although to be fair, several countries do this)...doesn't make it right though. The O&D argument should be a thing of the past since airport hubs are built on connecting traffic, not point-to-point. Maybe ET's CEO is grandstanding a little, but if the bilateral is so restrictive as to artificially limit demand, then consider what he is saying as marketing.
I really don't have a clear understanding as to why the Canadian government acts in this manner. As you said, even if a new entrant is siphoning off demand from existing carriers, then it's up to the carriers to try to re-establish their footing and up to the market to decide on who will survive.