Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SR,SN,EI All Without A Domestic Market?  
User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 11
Posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

My consideration is:

SwissAir, Sabena, AerLingus, are all airlines who are going to die due to financial trouble.
But all these carriers have something common: they don't have a domestic network (except the ZRH-GVA route).

Don't you think that without a domestic market where there are less competition and more possibility to make profits (just see SK in Scandinavia (BU take over), or LH in Germany (EW take over) or BA, AF, IB and AZ) is really hard to survive today??

What do you think about it??

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCeilidh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

EI had a domestic market - in fact, quite an extensive one.

BA on the other hand says that its domestic/regional flights lose it lots of money.

Go figure!


User currently offlineGibberish From Switzerland, joined Sep 2000, 424 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Actually Swissair and Crossair have more domestic routes, they serve the following cities: Basel, Geneva, Lugano, Berne, Sion and of course Zurich. But it is true, with Switzerland's population being close to 7 million, Swissair has a very small domestic market.

gibberish


User currently offlineAir Orange From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

The countries which form Europe are quite small. Distances are quite short in most of the countries so flying domestic has not always sinn.
I just think that there are too many airlines which want to present their own country. Look at Ryanair, Virgin Express and easyJet. They are doing well and they have based themselves on profitable airports (even in countries which are not their own country of origen) and are operating from out countries where there is a huge market. They offer what the people are asking for. Flying in Europe was still a matter of luxury. Now it all turns out "as taking the bus by air". No frills.


User currently offlineB737-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1419 times:


You might have a good point here.


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

In Belgium it would probably be not much faster but definately cheaper to go from any point in Belgium to Zaventem (Brussels), then to take the plane at a regional airport, and then fly to Zaventem. Therefore an internal network has very little use. There is to much competition from road and rail, as well as from other airlines (VLM, Virgin Express).


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineSab12 From Belgium, joined Sep 2001, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1399 times:

What about KLM?

They don't have what I call an internal market, just from Eindhoven and Maastricht, but those only exist because the roadsystem and traffic in Holland is worse.
Still KLM is doing better then the rest, so an internal market is not the only factor


User currently offlineSaint-Exupery From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

I've never been in Singapore, only at the airport, but I'm quiet sure it doesn't exists anything like a domestic market...

User currently offlineGibberish From Switzerland, joined Sep 2000, 424 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Yes KLM is doing good. There are a few reasons:
NW - most NW pax to Europe connect in AMS
Colonies - The Dutch had colonies and still have territories outside Europe, also a market.
Low cost - It doesn't cost as much to operate KLM with older planes, lower pilot wages and less quality than, say Swissair.

Remember Swissair only failed due to a poor strategy with wasting money, they had the customers. SR used to be the business traveler's preferred airline until their strategy switched from quality to quantity.

gibberish


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

The colonies are a bit far fetched. Sure we have still have the Dutch Antilles, but that won't make the difference between a profitable KLM and a loss-making KLM.

KLM has new planes, but SN and SR had new planes as well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the average age of the planes of SN and SR was newer. KLM still has some old 742's and 743's. Also 733's and 734's.

Personnel costs are indeed cheaper. Although probably still higher than in other places, but I really can't compare. I believe 40% of wages go to taxes etc.

NW is indeed a reason for having a lot of pax.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineJohnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

i don´t think that a domestic market is needed to be succesful.
certainly, for us airlines their domestic is much more important to them than the respective domestic market for such carriers like CSA, LOT, SR, SN, EI, and also bigger european carriers...
but i think it depends on the airlines, the respective markets and the route structure.

cathay pacific and singapore have absolutely no domestic market and they´re quite profitable, but they have no massive short-haul network like american or european air carriers.

rgds
daniel



If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1342 times:

EI fly DUB-CRK DUB-SNN etc so they do

LGW


User currently offlineLj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

The reason why KLM is profitable and SN not is very simple. The Netherlands is, unlike Belgium, a large trading nation with a lot of multinationals. Companies like Unilever, Shell (okay both are Anglo-Dutch), ING, ABN AMRO, AHOLD, Phillips and more are all belonging to the world league and generate a lot of air travel. Belgium doesn't have any large multinational. Moreover The Netherlands is the third or fourth largest investor in the USA which generates a lot of biz travel between both countries.

Finally, the cargo market at AMS is much bigger and the yield is very good (a lot of pershiables due to the fact that we've the largest flower market in the world).

Compare this to Belgium and you see why KLM is profitable. Moreover, SR only went bankrupt after it expanded too fast (investing in loss making airlines) and reducing quality standards).

Regards
Laurens


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Hello,

Up to a number of months ago (and for some routes, an year or two), Aer Lingus were pretty strong in the domestic market including Kerry, Galway, Donegal and so on. They gave up the last 2 Kerry and Galway earlier this year, I was on the last DUB-KIR flight. They even got payed under the PSO scheme to operate these flights. I was one of those who tried a lot for them to continue Kerry and Galway, got myself hated on an Irish Aviation Forum and so on. Aer Arann took over.

Jeremiah



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

My point was that in Europe, except low-cost carriers that are doing well, the high pressure of competition on intra-european flights reduced the profits margin, so for the so called "flag carriers" is too important to have a large domestic network in which the competition is low and the profit high.
Only BA today has also the pressure of low-cost carrier in domestic market.


User currently offlineLj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

And what about KLM? Yes no competition on domestic flights but they have fierce low cost competition on one of their most profitable route (Amsterdam - London).

Regards
Laurens


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...
Airlines Without Domestic Flights? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 12:06:14 by Emrecan
Booming Brazilian Domestic Market posted Sun Oct 9 2005 19:22:08 by Hardiwv
Do You Agree With EI's All 320 Selection posted Fri May 6 2005 12:34:58 by Toulouse
South Africa, Quite An Impressive Domestic Market posted Thu Mar 4 2004 12:23:46 by SAA-SAL
German Domestic Market posted Thu Jan 3 2002 12:55:29 by Flying-Tiger
German Domestic Market posted Sat Sep 1 2001 17:20:15 by Flying-Tiger
Belgium, BRU, SN And All That posted Fri May 4 2001 13:29:34 by OverseasBHX
Things Hotting Up In The NZ Domestic Market posted Fri Apr 27 2001 08:01:57 by JaseWGTN
SR/SN CEO's? posted Mon Nov 27 2000 03:05:24 by Blink182
Possble Alliance Between SR/SN,AA,JAL,CX,QF And... posted Sat Oct 14 2000 23:59:20 by Blink182