Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should AZ Stop All Longhaul Flying?  
User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15315 times:

Considering that AZ is in the red again should it try to trim its money-losing routes, which would be pretty much all its long-haul destinations. I doubt the yields are any good out of FCO, so I think AZ should focus on being an inter-european feeder airline and give up all the long-haul flying to AF/KL. I think I see AZ going the way of Olympic. Any thoughts?

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4995 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15310 times:

Absolutely not. Longhaul is the only way they will survive. How is CSA/Malev/Olympic doing without Longhaul?

User currently offlinesantos From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15168 times:

Quoting miaintl (Thread starter):
which would be pretty much all its long-haul destinations

Probably the problem is not long-haul, but short-haul.
LH, AF, BA, all struggle to make a profit on their short-haul routes, hence new ideas/airlines have been created to operate short-haul flights.


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15083 times:

Quoting santos (Reply 2):
Probably the problem is not long-haul, but short-haul.

You're right. Shorthaul is where most of the erosion of Alitalia's market (and subsequent lower yeilds) has occurred, mainly due to Ryanair and Easyjet. Longhaul seems to do pretty well. For example, AZ's loads out of MIA are usually pretty good. The 2 times I've flown them to FCO they were completely full 772's and each time I've priced them, their cost has been as high or higher than the competition (which involves and extra stop compared to AZ's nonstops). It is ironic to me that the original poster on this thread has a name miaintl given his idea AZ should give up longhaul and AZ's longhaul prowess from MIA.


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15084 times:

Going short-haul only would leave the airline directly in competition with the European LCCs, who would eat AZ's lunch. It would be better to dump unprofitable short-haul routes but keep the long haul routes and improve their yields by trying to appeal to premium travelers.

User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 14605 times:

As long as they are based out of FCO their yields will always be crap. Only out of MXP can AZ operate long-haul profitably. There is no reason for AZ to fly long-haul anymore in this current environment. They have no hub system to feed their long-haul routes and they have no premium traffic helping either. Rome and southern Italy are low-yield and not premium oriented. There is a reason FCO can never be a hub like AMS/CDG. So going forward AZ should just feed all of its long-haul traffic to CDG ad AF and just be a feeder carrier.

[Edited 2013-01-29 14:13:47]

User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14186 times:

AZ lost the battle long ago, losing out to lucrative corportate accounts to LH, AF_KL, and BA. The whole rational behind CAI's takeover was to consolidate with AP and for basically the owners to "motivate" other italian based companies to switch contracts back to AZ (CAI is made out of the main industrial and finacial powerhouses oi Italy (sans FIAT and baboon Berlusconi).

With the de-hubbing of Milan intercontinental routes, and poor scheduling of the remaining long-haul from MXP, this has become unattractive.

AZ has come a long way since it was taken over but the global financial crisis followed by the Euro crisis has not helped.

Italy can support a MIL based long haul carrier while FCO can have a seasonal/charter long haul carrier. I now do not think AZ can continue to be that airline.

CAI should done an LX whereby transferring all assets and brand to AP.

Regrettably as most things happen in Italy it not what the potential of country that shines through but concoction of despicable politicians, a powerful underground criminal lobby (which today is more and more involved in business activities) sucks the innovation and entrepreneur spirit out of this great country.


User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 603 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14142 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 5):
As long as they are based out of FCO their yields will always be crap. Only out of MXP can AZ operate long-haul profitably. There is no reason for AZ to fly long-haul anymore in this current environment. They have no hub system to feed their long-haul routes and they have no premium traffic helping either. Rome and southern Italy are low-yield and not premium oriented. There is a reason FCO can never be a hub like AMS/CDG. So going forward AZ should just feed all of its long-haul traffic to CDG ad AF and just be a feeder carrier.

This does not compute.

I agree that the region is low-yielding, but that's just it; long-haul flying with premium cabins is the closest thing to profitability that they have. Becoming a short-haul "feeder carrier" on incredibly low-yielding, ultra-competitive routes is an all but certain suicide. At that point, AZ should just pack up and go home. It would be impossible to climb back out from that hole.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7412 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14126 times:

Quoting miaintl (Thread starter):
Considering that AZ is in the red again should it try to trim its money-losing routes, which would be pretty much all its long-haul destinations.
Quoting santos (Reply 2):
Probably the problem is not long-haul, but short-haul.
LH, AF, BA, all struggle to make a profit on their short-haul routes, hence new ideas/airlines have been created to operate short-haul flights.

Exactly, I bet short-haul is as bad or worse.


User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4805 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14030 times:

Quoting flyyul (Reply 1):
Absolutely not. Longhaul is the only way they will survive. How is CSA/Malev/Olympic doing without Longhaul?

totally correct 100% as you need long haul to feed the short haul and v.v

if you only rely on short haul, then for a carrier like AZ it would become heavily reliant on O&D traffic bound to Italy as its geographical location within the EU is not as attractive as FRA/MUC/ZRH which are central to enable Western EU to connect nicely to the East and Centre via a short transit. Plus O&D in Europe is engulfed with LCC competition leading to yields being not as high as they are on domestic USA flights.

AZ's cost structure is indeed a problem and going into a broad based alliance with Etihad should in the long run help them as it would allow them to sell many offline points in Asia with EY via AUH on a code share basis rather than operating it unprofitably using their own metal.


User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8147 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13863 times:

They do well flying from both FCO and MXP to NRT, most of the pax are high yield Japanese tourists. AZ are the only airline flying between Italy and Japan so fares are pretty high* and the product is very good. NRT gets 12 flights per week and I think they also serve KIX (not sure freq / origin).

* except when they're accidentally selling daytrips to Asia for €99 - I only did two of those! One a.netter did two back to back!



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 995 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days ago) and read 13809 times:

If AZ gives up all long haul flying what will they have left??
There is no way all of their long haul routes are loosing money and if they cut all long haul flights they might as well go out of business because they can not compete against European LCC's.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6366 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days ago) and read 13764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting miaintl (Thread starter):
Considering that AZ is in the red again should it try to trim its money-losing routes
Quoting miaintl (Reply 5):
As long as they are based out of FCO their yields will always be crap. Only out of MXP can AZ operate long-haul profitably. There is no reason for AZ to fly long-haul anymore in this current environment. They have no hub system to feed their long-haul routes and they have no premium traffic helping either. Rome and southern Italy are low-yield and not premium oriented. There is a reason FCO can never be a hub like AMS/CDG. So going forward AZ should just feed all of its long-haul traffic to CDG ad AF and just be a feeder carrier.

Well. After four responses, you seem to have made up your mind and answered your own question...

I don´t think AZ´s troubles are with long haul. Not even short haul. Their problem is their service, which is like IB´s. Not as bad, but in the same league. And their crappy management. It does not help that Milan has two airports, MXP and Linate.

If customers that used to fly AZ are flying FR and Easyjet, well, AZ then needs to model istself in short haul after one of those two. Kind of what IB is attempting to do.

[Edited 2013-01-29 19:39:03]

User currently offlineIL96M From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11770 times:

AZ should stop flying, full stop. Or more exactly, be allowed to go the way of SN and SR and collapse, and be reborn as a new national carrier that is privatised and really works. The current AZ fails to shake off the old shackles of Italian state-run businesses and here is the result.

  


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 824 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11688 times:

I agree that this is not a question of longhaul vs shorthaul, it is not that only one of the areas can be profitable.

It they can fill their longhaul aircraft with average prices and even have some freight to fill the bellies there is no reason to give up longhaul flying.

Regarding shorthaul I might agree that a good number oft their routes might not be profitable anymore. Perhaps they should only sustain their shorthaul routes into their hubs to feed the longhaul aircraft and stop flying all non-hub spoke-to-spoke routes. Or like mentioned by other users above they could create a LCC like LH (4U), AF (hop) and IB (IB Express) have done and let the LCC do all the spoke-to-spoke flying, with AZ keeping its hub-to-spoke routes to get enough feed into their longhaul-network.


If they can NOT fill their longhaul planes, the above mentioned plan would make no sense, too. In this case they could only lower service standards and wages to compete on a LCC basis with FR, U2, etc. and just feed into AMS and CDG. But I don't see that happening as the Italian unions would never accept lower income.
So for AZ the only option is to make their longhaul-network a profitable one. Or they can go into liquidation right away.


Basically that is the problem for all European network carriers, they are profitable longhaul (or have to be profitable on this sector), but are loosing on the shorthaul side. Perhaps they can turn that around with the LCC model on their spoke-to-spoke routes. But most of the times a race to the bottom will always have some winners and some losers, it is never a win-win situation for every player involved in the game.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 824 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11668 times:

To add to my last post: I agree with others here, that longhaul flying out of MXP would probably much more higher yielding and profitable compared to FCO. And it would help MXP remain a strong hub and not loose more and more flying to LIN, which just has the advantage of being closer to the city center.

User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10954 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 15):

The reason why short-haul is not profitable for AZ is because of FCO. Passengers have to back-track to connect to AZ long-haul flights. The whole Rome as hub idea needs to be scrapped because it does not work. I think an anetter named Wisdom already demonstrated that.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 824 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10520 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 16):

Not counting the O+D market, they still have enough opportunity to connect a lot of worldwide points from FCO.

North America - Africa/Southeast Europe/Russia/Asia
Africa - all Europe/Russia/Asia

Heck, the more southern location of FCO might even be an advantage. Would I go FRA-CDG-ADD? I don't think so. But would I go FRA-FCO-ADD? Oh yes, no backtracking involved.

Don't quote me on saying FCO is a better hub than MXP, I am all for MXP, much wealthier O+D market in Northern Italy, but still, FCO is not as bad as sometimes pointed out here on a.net. The location has its pros and cons, with the cons being its location as transit hub for Europe to NA/Asia, as long as 1 hour more on a 12 hour flight is really important to the traveller. ^^


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2520 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9539 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 17):
Heck, the more southern location of FCO might even be an advantage. Would I go FRA-CDG-ADD? I don't think so. But would I go FRA-FCO-ADD? Oh yes, no backtracking involved.

You're right. Africa is still underserved and AZ should go down that road and increase its coverage of Africa. It could fly smaller A319s to many Saharan and North African destinations (Libya and Algeria mainly) and connect them to the world.
BTW, AZ is starting flights to Oran in Algeria. Might be a sign of things to come.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlinechootie From Germany, joined May 2007, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 14):
LCC like LH (4U), AF (hop) and IB (IB Express) have done and let the LCC do all the spoke-to-spoke flying, with AZ keeping its hub-to-spoke routes to get enough feed into their longhaul-network.

.... Lets see how these LCC within a company pan out. There is, as of now, NO financial stats on just how well they are--will be doing. In this industry, it is all on shakey ground.

FWIW, I really do not think the LCC within a company model will prove to be advantageous.         



chootie
User currently offlineKL577 From Netherlands, joined Oct 2006, 776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8939 times:

Quoting flyyul (Reply 1):
How is CSA/Malev/Olympic doing without Longhaul?

Malev decided to both do away with long-haul and short-haul flying. Didn't work out too well for them!


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8427 times:

Is there a chance that AZ will ever move its hub back to Milan or are they really commited to keeping Rome as the main hub? Is it the main reason that AZ is losing money on short-haul flights is that passengers from other parts of Europe have to backtrack to get to AZ? I think that the choice to keep the hub at FCO is mostly due to political pressure and lobbying not becasue it makes any sense from a buisness and financial persepective. But after all this is Italy, when was the last time you have seen Italians make good buisness descisions or even run a company profitably?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25834 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8113 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 5):
As long as they are based out of FCO their yields will always be crap. Only out of MXP can AZ operate long-haul profitably.

Catch-22, choose your poison.

Rome, a larger but lower yielding market.

Milan a smaller volume but more a business market.

Volume wise you can support more destinations at Rome then smaller Milan.

Quoting WAC (Reply 6):
Italy can support a MIL based long haul carrier while FCO can have a seasonal/charter long haul carrier.

You realize that FCO is a larger market right? Look at longhaul airlines that service Milan, its less then Rome.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 10):
They do well flying from both FCO and MXP to NRT, most of the pax are high yield Japanese tourists.

High yielding Japanese tourist  

Japanese tourist are known around the world as being one of the lowest yielding.
Japanese are a nation where travel is very much built around mass group tourism and tour companies that negotiate very favorable low rates from airlines. Individual tourism is not a very popular thing in Japan.

Quoting miaintl (Reply 21):
Is there a chance that AZ will ever move its hub back to Milan

The split airport situation in Milan makes a Malpensa hub not feasible. When domestic and European capital services opt for Linate, your MXP hub losses its connectivity and feed.

This is a huge achilles heel in anyone trying to turn MXP into a hub.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

AZ is part of the AF/DL/KL JV. You can bet all of that flying is profitable for them.

User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8147 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7323 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 10):
They do well flying from both FCO and MXP to NRT, most of the pax are high yield Japanese tourists.

High yielding Japanese tourist  

Japanese tourist are known around the world as being one of the lowest yielding.
Japanese are a nation where travel is very much built around mass group tourism and tour companies that negotiate very favorable low rates from airlines. Individual tourism is not a very popular thing in Japan.

I knew when I typed this that any leisure traveller is not as high yield as a biz traveller who doesn't even know the fare; but the Japanese do pay extra for quality. I am sure there are cheaper ways of reaching southern Europe from Japan (sandbox carriers, or SU, PK, etc) but AZ command a premium with nonstop flights, Japanese cabin crew, Japanese catering etc.

PS I hope this is true or Skymark are going to have a problem with their low density leisure A380s, which my Japanese friends tell me will be a good fit for the market. I hope so!



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
25 miaintl : If that is the case then why do London and Paris operate numerous airports without it harming their LHR and CDG hub? What makes Milan different than
26 LAXintl : Unfortunately the numbers don't really show this. Per IATA BSP data - here is the average ticket fare (in Euros) earned by 10 airlines between Tokyo
27 jfk777 : Rome is the problem, its too far south. Milan and Northern Italians love Munich and Zurich, they are Italy's "two Northern Airports." AZ has a limted
28 miaintl : Then what is the solution for AZ going forward? If they cannot move their hub to Milan then what does it need to do to make a profit?
29 CARST : I assume these numbers are only for O+D pax ending their flights at FCO/MXP? Because I think to have a clear picture on the money earned by AZ on the
30 Post contains images flyyul : Miaintl - you're really out of touch with the market it seems. You're aware that more international carriers fly to Rome because the market is bigger
31 LAXintl : Yes its only O&D. If you want to look at beyond points such as CDG for example AF earns almost €150 over what AZ earns. LHR is even greater with
32 Viscount724 : I assume those market share numbers only consider direct services, and not the many thousands of passengers who connect at other European hubs, eithe
33 LAXintl : No, the market share is inclusive of connections. Considering there is no other scheduled nonstop service between Japan and Italy, AZ has 100% of the
34 WAC : FCO is only larger market due to the fact that there is only one airport .. CIA is very small and not much room to grow . Add BGY, MXP, MIL (and let
35 CARST : I am overall agreeing with you WAC, but perhaps instead of making LIN a domestic airport only I would prefer a LGA based system of a distance-limit.
36 miaintl : Can LIN be expanded in order to accomodate widebody and longhaul traffic? Can a new terminal and second runway be built?
37 Post contains links CARST : I'd say YES. At least theoretically. But practically this would be another case. We know what happens today if you want to build an airport or extend
38 miaintl : What is your prediction for the future of AZ? Can they continue to operate a hub out of FCO profitably or do they have to switch the operations back t
39 jfk777 : AZ should stop flying to Japan and sell its 777 fleet. Its should fly only its lighter A330-200 concentraing long haul to flights under 11 hours, no m
40 miaintl : Exactly AZ should really cut alot of its long-haul flying. There is no reason why it should have premium-configured 777s out of FCO. It should only fo
41 leftyboarder : Italy is Europe's 4th largest economy, right? I don't get how it can't support a fraction of what AF/BA/LH can in terms of long haul. Heck, it is eve
42 miaintl : AZ can only compete with those other airlines if it is based at MXP. As long as it is based in FCO it will be at a disadvantage and remain uncompeteti
43 flyyul : You have trouble understanding that AZ lost many billions of dollars at Malpensa. Last time AZ reported a profit was Q3 last year, and the hub was at
44 CARST : But that was still was a double-hub philosophy at FCO and MXP. The question is would it be better for them to have chosen MXP instead of FCO as the s
45 flyyul : There was no "double hub". FCO had service to NRT, EZE, GRU, JFK..and seasonal service to YYZ/EWR. MXP had service to PVG, DXB, DEL, YYZ, IAD, KIX, E
46 Post contains links dc9northwest : They will stay in FCO. They made their choice. I can only ask, what happened to you in Rome? Anyway, I disagree. I'd expand strongly in Africa before
47 miaintl : But FCO has little to no high-yielding traffic. AZ is not expanding to places like Africa and the Middle East but is instead expanding to places like
48 flyyul : Miaintl - if Rome is such a lousy premium destination, then why do Emirates/Thai/Korean/United/American/Delta/Singapore/Cathay participate in this mar
49 ComeAndGo : On the face it looks like that but in reality in past governments foreign airlines had a choice of either serving Rome or serving Rome and the destin
50 miaintl : I am considering your arguments however they still fall flat. FCO is good as an O&D destination not as a transfer hub. AZ is exapnding in all the
51 AR385 : Can anybody provide some hard numbers that prove FCO is such low yield? I find this very hard to believe, but I may be wrong.
52 LAXintl : And huge losses to go along with it. Lets look at this from maybe an angle you can understand. Linate is close to your home and for our discussion is
53 miaintl : Then they should close LIN and operate everything out of MXP and under a single-roof. MXP will be Milan sole airport, or at the least LIN can be hande
54 dc9northwest : Alitalia, out of business. I guess that's the headline you're looking for with that move.
55 miaintl : They can provide high-speed rail service from MXP so that passengers can reach the city center quicker. Plus we are not talking about O&D but tra
56 LAXintl : You can try. Maybe except making environmentalist happy, I don't believe there is any viable push to close Linate. It be like closing LGA or DCA in t
57 miaintl : MXP can serve all of Italy domestically with AZ. AZ can still offer tons of European and Italian destinations from MXP. The only real alternative to t
58 mercure1 : Making hub only at MXP is suicide for AZ. Even Air France does not consolidate at CDG fully and maintains some 200+ flights daily at close in Orly air
59 LAXintl : First hubs require some local O&D which helps increases your yield. But to have an effective hub, you need lots of flights, to lots of cities. Si
60 Heavierthanair : G'day The Malpensa Express train connects Malpensa with the city center in 30 minutes, about the time required to get to Linate using public transport
61 Post contains images mercure1 : And for taxi also. Last time in Milan taxi from Linate to destination was about €18 and took about 15min. Same trip from Malpensa would be a whoppi
62 miaintl : But if AZ comes under AF management I dont see it being transformed into a major global carrier like KL. It will must likely become a feeder airline t
63 jfk777 : How much of Alitalia's loses are from flying to Tokyo ?
64 justinlee : They have already stopped FCO-PEK. What a pity!
65 LJ : Well, CSA will have a long haul flight as of S13... Which already happens, though it doesn't work out well (AZ/KL just closed AMS-TRN and AMS-FLR is
66 miaintl : As long as FCO is the hub AZ will bleed cash. They need another alternative because the termination of FCO-PEK is proof that long-haul is not profitab
67 delta2ual : OMG, you sound like a broken record! We all agree with you-something needs to be done, but unless Alitalia can convince the government to close Linat
68 miaintl : AF will most likely make AZ a smaller carrier which feeds AF's long haul routes. I don't see AZ becoming like KL or FCO like AMS.
69 dtfg : Air China also serves PEK-MXP and PVG-MXP, plus PEK-FCO and MU's PVG-FCO. After AZ quits Beijing the market is completely served by Chinese carriers.
70 Flighty : Exactly. I vote Italy does not have a city that can work as a hub. MXP has potential, but Rome does not. And MXP's potential could be best explored b
71 miaintl : MXP should be explored by AZ. Other entities like LH have already tried to operate a hub at MXP but it did not work. In an ideal world MXP would be AZ
72 flyyul : miaintl- you don't listen to anybody on this forum. Truth of the matter is there's a lot of qualified and smart people that work at Alitalia who simpl
73 delta2ual : This makes no sense; LH could not make MXP work, but you are sure that AZ could?
74 Post contains images mandala499 : Sure, by the same argument, maybe Edinburgh/Glasgow should be explored by BA and Nice by AF? AZ's problem is the politics of FCO, LIN and MXP. Want t
75 miaintl : AZ also faces plenty of competition in FCO. But FCO is not an ideal connecting hub either. The truth is that Italy does not have a viable hub anywhere
76 flyyul : If AZ has poor yields as you say MIAINTL - then AZ has to focus on getting more seats on their airplanes to offset lower yields.
77 miaintl : Was AZ going to have a 200-million dollar fund injected into it today? How about its frequent flying program be sold and liquidated?
78 northstardc4m : Just to throw a wrench into these operations discussions... The reason AZ can't compete with LH, AF, BA, etc or make money is less to do with tourist
79 miaintl : AZ may now link-up with SU. I wonder what consequences that will have? How do these two carriers even compliment each other?
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...
Airbus Advises KU To Stop All A300 Operation? posted Thu Dec 30 2010 05:58:08 by captain777
JAL To Stop All-Freighter Operation From Oct. 2010 posted Thu Mar 25 2010 10:05:06 by airbuseric
Should MQ Park All Its ERJ-135s? posted Sun Apr 6 2008 13:38:54 by Cslusarc
Should Boeing Give All Of Their Models Names? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 15:34:05 by EI321
Important Note For All Crew Flying Into NZ posted Sun Feb 25 2007 04:03:31 by TG992
SQ Spacebed - Available On All Longhaul Flights? posted Wed Jan 18 2006 15:42:24 by KL911
Shuttle America To Fly 170/190Drop All Prop Flying posted Fri Apr 22 2005 02:59:52 by UnitedTristar
LH Orders Connexion For All Longhaul Aircraft posted Tue May 27 2003 17:54:17 by Racko
Things That Stop Pilots From Flying? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 01:32:36 by Flymia
Stop Fears Of Flying Before They Start posted Fri Mar 28 2003 03:17:40 by Skymileman