PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1639 times:
Yes MUC-SIN has gone - in August my daughter booked PER-SIN-MUC (then to BHX later) for 17 January, now she has to go SIN-FRA-MUC, her itinerary still shows a B747 though. (SIN-MUC was to be a A340.)
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
Yes, MUC should be an attractive destination for SIA. Linking two high tech regions should result in good profits...
By the way, the current development just shows how LH works: they try to keep partners (and competitors as well of course) out of certain routes (they kicked RG's GRU service out and they stopped SIA in opening own flights to MUC) in order to enjoy 100% market share. And some time later, after they find themselves unbale to keep up load factors, they drop those routes again...people are forced to transfer at FRA again and MUC is the loser.
It's quite interesting that Varig had enjoyed quite high load factors and even upgraded to MD-11s on the GRU-MUC route. Then LH came, introduced three additional flights and RG was forced to pull out. And even before the Sept.11th attacks LH had explained the flights to GRU weren't profitable any longer...???
I still remember the days when TAP wanted to fly LIS-MUC-MFM (Macao) and LH started yawning even before TAP really announced official plans...how can they be so afraid of competition, regarding their (indeed) excellent strategic position within Star? And what about the "excellent overall service" which many people in this forum always emphasize? If LH is so well positioned as many claim, why do they behave like a baby dog whose bone is taken away whenever an airline wants to start new longhaul service to MUC?
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
Where did you find the info on "LH sues United"? I haven't heard about that yet but if it's true...
I haven't heard about problems with an agreement in the case of Germany and Singapore. Not only LH and SIA have used to fly between both countries. Garuda did and also Qantas. I'm not sure about the current Qantas routing (BKK or SIN or both). But regarding the number of carriers and the number of flights such an agreement shouldn't be the reason.
By the way, I hope Thai can be released from Star soon so that they can join SkyTeam. Since SIA has entered Star Thai's position has suffered significantly...
Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
LH didn´t kick RG out of MUC-GRU.
- traffic figures were already declining in spring, and that was after RG introduced the MD-11 to the route.
- yields were declining, since the ratio between the brazil currency and the dollar/deutsche mark was deteriorating. already same time last year, the world economy was heading into a downturn.
and that´s also why LH pulled out of GIG.
- LH needed to put its MUC-based A340s on some route, whereas at that time, RG could more profitably deploy its MD-11s on other toures.
-in addition, it was quite a bad schedule from the start.
LH and RG operated the GRU-MUC leg on two days of the week double daily, but MUC-GRU six times a week.
so, having these two airlines operating the same route each three times the week when co-operating is certainly not a masterpiece of schedulung.
same counts for SQ operating SIN-MUC. both, LH and SQ, operating the same route three times a week would end in services on six days a week in one direction and only four times a week, and twice a double daily, in the other direction. f.e.
LH 1,3,5 MUC-SIN 2,4,6 2,4,6 SIN-MUC 3,5,7
SQ_____________________1,3,5 SIN-MUC 2,4,6
SQ_3,5,7 MUC-SIN 1,4,6
i´m not saying that LH is unhappy about not having SQ at MUC, but there are certainly more important reasons than to worry about a partner airline´s service reputation.
why do they behave like a baby dog whose bone is taken away whenever an airline wants to start new longhaul service to MUC?
and what about BA concerning LHR?
yep, LH´s is the black sheep among all carriers.
additionally, LH didn´t sue UA for unfair competition.
LH complained to the DOT about all american transatlantic carriers (including UA, of course) for heavily discounting prices while being subsidized by the US government.
btw, LH and UA quickly resolved their dispute and found a way which is not negatively affecting LH´s profits on these routes (profit-sharing).
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1228 times:
The schedules weren't a problem at the beginning when RG operated its three flights a week. Trouble started when LH added its own flights, a decision which I just don't understand. If the economic decline had been that bad, LH should have seen any evidence for that already at the time when they started their own service. Economic problems don't just occur suddendly (except from the sole case of the Sept.11 attacks). So I'm still wondering why they started own flights in uncertain times then...
I'm quite sure LH would be very unhappy with SQ flying on the MUC route due to SIA's service reputation. Don't you remember the fights between BA and Virgin? BA just opposed any new VS route because they knew well that VS simply offered much more...
You are right that BA also opposes any other carrier in their home market. But don't forget the slot restrictions at LHR which are not comparable to MUC.
And BA has been faced with many more competitors in their home market than LH...bmi, Virgin, KLM uk, Ryanair, esayjet, Go (now after they sold it), British European...all of them strong competitors, plus all the other carriers from abroad which in most cases fly their top products and top aircraft to London or the UK.
Strong competition in Germany? Ok, many foreign airlines at FRA, but what else? Germania, Deutsche BA? Sorry, but the German market is not the same as in the UK.
Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
RG operated 3x GRU-MUC, numbers increased, introduced the MD-11.
LH introduced the route due to major demand.
figures decreased, yields diminished, instead of LH RG pulled out which made more sense. conditions deteriorated even more, LH pulled out, too.
if it was so obvious that demand would decrease on that route so much, and LH wanted to kick RG out, they wouldn´t have had to introduce the same flights on their own and risking losses.
regarding SQ, as i pointed out i do think as well that LH would prefer any route to operate entirely one its own where they would benefit from that, however, all i´m saying is that it´s not a valid reason to speculate LH has kicked out this and that airline since they just fear their service.
it´s obvious that LH can compete with airlines such as SQ and CX, TG and others since they´re returning massive profits on these routes.
and btw, LH and SQ are partners, whereas BA and VS are not.
true, the situation between LHR and MUC is not that similar, and i was not referring to the slot situation at MUC. there are other airlines which act just as anti-competively as LH.
all of them strong competitors, plus all the other carriers from abroad which in most cases fly their top products and top aircraft to London or the UK.
yes, it´s really a shame BA has the world´s busiest and most important international airport as its main hub.
the same airlines operate the same top class products to FRA as well.
and just to point out, i definitively agree about the domestic market part. in germany, LH faces obviously far less competition which i do not appreciate.
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.