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.