loveofflying From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1829 times:
Hmmm... I think many others don't serve TPE in part because of the bilateral problems... but also because it's low-yield. But EK et al thrive on markets where they have little competition... So I'm very surprised they're not there yet!
qf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1828 times:
so why you don't fly legacy carries, why are you keen on Gulf carriers? They are everywhere and they are in everyones face, its not funny. I enjoy seeing an airport where NO Gulf carrier flies.... hard to find nowadays!
justinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Firstly, the political issue is not a problem after 2008 after the aviation agreement between Mainland China and Taiwan.
Secondly, the long-haul international market for TPE is relatively small. Most of the business activities of Taiwan happen in the Asia-Pacific region. While the advantage of Gulf Carriers is Europe-Asia routes, TPE only has 2xweekly to FCO, 5xweekly to FRA, 2xweekly to VIE, 1xdaily to AMS (direct service). Not quite a big market!
Thirdly, people in Taiwan tend to use HKG as their most favorable international hub. And CX is far better than CI or BR.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Taiwan carriers have served Gulf region in the past though, China Airlines did Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Dhahran and Jeddah, EVA Air did passenger and cargo flights to Dubai and Mandrin Airlines did Abu Dhabi.
Currently China Airlines Cargo are serving Abu Dhabi.
from the Gulf Saudia Cargo operated freighters to TPE from the 80s to 2003.
leftyboarder From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
About the "legacy carrier" neither side is entirely incorrect, as the term itself actually first applied to US carriers only that had a significant country-wide presence at the time of deregulation. It later came to symbolize "incumbent carriers", not unlike telecom industry where the government-owned monopolies were once legacies and new entrants had to compete with them to gain market share.
About TPE, I'd say the market is not as big as some would assume, with the entire country around 23m people - compare that to China (where EK has flights to 3 points only).
KFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
Well, I think the real denominator of what airline can be considered legacy or what not - is there cost and practices. Even if you're an airline that is just one year old, but is run by a team who believe in legacy practices and expect legacy privileges - then yes you're a legacy carrier.
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13144 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
If there were real demand, a Taiwanese carrier could do a set of code-shares with a mid-east carrier. CX would be a tough airline to compete with on the Diamond route.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): I'd say probably the same reason many others dont/cant serve ROC either.
Rochester New York?!?
Quoting 777way (Reply 7): Taiwan carriers have served Gulf region in the past though, China Airlines did Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Dhahran and Jeddah, EVA Air did passenger and cargo flights to Dubai and Mandrin Airlines did Abu Dhabi.
By what definition? They do not have many of the procedures and policies of a true Legacy carrier. EK's aircraft utilization tends to be higher than a 'Legacy' carrier. There are marked differences between how some of the mid-east airlines run and a Legacy carrier (e.g., aircraft down time).
As noted, both sides could be technically correct. However, the mid-east carriers should be discussed separately as they are far more nimble than most 'Legacy airlines.'
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 8): Quoting joost (Reply 5):
One could even argue if WN is already a legacy carrier nowadays.
By US definitition, since WN was flying during regulation, it is considered a Legacy.
Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
It's only a matter of time... Asia is a big place, and carriers that rely so heavily on through traffic can only expand one part of their network as quickly as they can expand others to avoid capacity issues. So they've had to prioritise growth in Asia to the biggest/most important cities before they can start to move on to covering the smaller ones.
No. While there are plenty of definitions out there, legacy carriers are recognised as having significant history behind them. They predate the modern industry, whereas these three carriers (EY and QR particularly) are a product of the modern industry.
These carriers are much the same airline today as they were when they were born (aside from obvious growth, and I grant that EK has changed pretty significantly). Compare that to the US majors, BA, QF, KL, SQ etc which have radically changed and developed over the period of close to a century in a couple of cases, and you'll see the distinction...
justinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
Quoting flyingfool (Reply 11): AMS sees currently 15 weekly flights to TPE operated by KL (7x), CI (5x) and BR (3x)
I mean non-stop. Actually both CI and BR use BKK a stopover for their european routes, which is kind of weird. If I want to go TPE-LHR for example, what's the point to take an non-allaince carrier (before they join the alliance) and stop at BKK? And I can suspect there are not so many people flying the BKK-CDG leg. CX or KE does a better job with one stop.
Quoting justinlee (Reply 16): I mean non-stop. Actually both CI and BR use BKK a stopover for their european routes, which is kind of weird. If I want to go TPE-LHR for example, what's the point to take an non-allaince carrier (before they join the alliance) and stop at BKK? And I can suspect there are not so many people flying the BKK-CDG leg. CX or KE does a better job with one stop.
Dear Justinelee, you probably was never on one of these CI or BR flight from Taipei to Europe via Bangkok. I happen to travel very often on this route and I can tell you the sector from BKK to AMS or other European destination is a high yield route. Many Europeans travelled to BKK for leisure and for retirement. I was sitting next to a Dutch taxi driver who are going to get married (again?) at 55 years old on my recent BR flight from AMS to BKK.
Yes, the stop over at BKK is not very nice, especially on the outbound flight from TPE, since it leaves late in the evening and you are just about to fall asleep when the plane commences decent, however, on the return part, it is actually a nice way to stretch your leg with that stop at BKK.
BR is the only carrier, if I remember correctly, fles direct from TPE to Paris but that is not a regular daily flight.