Joemugg From United States, joined Aug 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5924 times:
How do you feel about this new routing? I think it's strange. Isn't this market already served to the nth degree? How much could AF possibly make on such an audacious route? If I was flying to England I'd fly BA or United (from LAX.) If I was flying to India, I'd fly BA or Lufthansa, both requiring stopovers. If I were flying to Asia I'd fly SA or Malaysian. I wouldn't fly AF to the UK. I'd fly AF to CDG or perhaps to Africa.
SW733 From Namibia, joined Feb 2004, 2759 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5908 times:
Ok...why? If they're a good airline, they're a good airline. If they have good fares, they have good fares. I've flown Air India from the US to UK when I was in college because they were cheap.
Also, think about frequent fliers...Star Alliance has UA, Oneworld has BA...what about SkyTeam? AF can capture the LAX based Skyteam folks.
Misbeehavin From United States, joined Mar 2005, 843 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5874 times:
Quoting Joemugg (Reply 2): I'm also assuming that the flight continues on to CDG
Nope, the flight returns to LHR. The aircraft will do CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG rotations.
And it's a joint op with DL, so DL's FF base in LAX has a non-stop to the UK now. Not a bad idea in principle - they're starting to try what KL+NW do - but let's see how well it works.
FlyingClrs727 From United States, joined Apr 2007, 389 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5672 times:
Quoting Misbeehavin (Reply 3): And it's a joint op with DL, so DL's FF base in LAX has a non-stop to the UK now. Not a bad idea in principle - they're starting to try what KL+NW do - but let's see how well it works.
It allows all the Sky Team members to code share a flight from LAX-LHR. None of the US Sky Team members had a spare 777 they could allocate to the flight. It just adds another AF 777 to be handled at LAX every day.
LHRBFSTrident From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Nov 2006, 455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5426 times:
I will try and dig up the source but I read a table that showed the top 5 routes in terms of pax numbers ex-LHR.
LAX came in at number 5... New York was number 1 and the others inbetween were European routes
With those kinds of pax numbers, the SkyTeam FFP connection, strong premium cabin O&D and a great onboard product, AF isn't so stupid to start this route.
IIRC, during the 1990s when BA flew LHR-LAX x2 daily the destination flightdeck crew briefing sheet stated it was their 'second most-profitable' route (after JNB)...
Also - their service offers a great late afternoon departure ex-LHR which I am always looking for when returning from UK - that basically gives an extra useful day in the UK, that on flights departing earlier in the day ends up being breakfast and a trip to the airport with virtually zero productive time...
Next up: LAX-SEA AS SEA-LHR NW LHR-ATH BA ATH-LCA CY LCA-LHR BA
Haggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 631 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): The 777s are going 10Y, so not sure that will be true forever. At least if you are big.
you are right, unfortunately.... right now, I avoid the 77W on AF for that exact reason, which is possible as long as only one aircraft type is affected.... will see what the future brings...
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11): on LAX-LHR, AF will use a 777-200ER, and I thought all these were 9Y?
Eugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5204 times:
As a teacher in accounting I use this example to explain key factor anaylsis. If you have limited number of slots then you will give priority to routes which give the most ABSOLUTE gross profit (not percentage gross profit). Using that particular slot to fly to Paris might yield 10% gross profit on an average fare of £200. If they fly to Los Angleses they might make just 5% gross profit but the average fare is probabley over £600. So flying to Los Angleses yields £30 gross profit compared to just £20 gross profit. And this is before considering capacity - I have assumed they use the same plane size.
If there was no limit to the number of slots then they would server BOTH routes (and all routes that yield positve gross profit) but if it is EITHER Paris OR Los Angeles then its is going to be Los Angeles because of the higher gross profit.
Obviously there are factors such as plane utilization but the basic principle remains!
However this route doesn't just cater for you, it caters for a whole market.
Rule changes mean AF can do this, just like Openskies can do the same from CDG. Whilst Openskies are not ready yet, AF are. They want to get in there as the trend setters, and of course to give their customers more options. Also AF are using regular planes, which keeps economy passengers happy with extra choice, not just premium pax.
Quoting Joemugg (Reply 2): If it returned directly to LAX that would be weird. Perhaps I'm a purist.
Have you read the regulation changes?
Cathay Pacific or Virgin Atlantic. Win Win situation.
Basrabob From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4798 times:
I would go so far as to say that AF have been the most far-sighted of the EU carriers , they were the first of the EU carriers to amalgamate with another carrier . And they have stolen a march on the rest of the EU carriers with this flight from LHR -
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Aug 2007, 39 posts, 
From Namibia, joined Feb 2004, 2759 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 631 posts, 
the routing of the plane (and crew with the appropriate stopovers, AFAIK) is CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG...
From , joined today!, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Nov 2006, 455 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 434 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 1868 posts, 