Maybe so, but may I ask who's benefit it would be if we will see only 3 major airlines. Surely it is advantage for those 3 airlines but definitely all passengers would be losers due the increased travel time if they should always fly via the main hubs of those respective airlines. I'm aware of the demise of SN
, but there is also many growing smaller airlines.
Finnair is good example... they have done profits while major airlines have done losses. We have three digit growth numbers considering of long-haul flights from HEL
. What would happen all those routes if AY
would be just one of the feeders of LH
for example. We would see 15 non-stop flights between HEL
but that is all. Instead of 8hr non-stop long-haul flight to Beijing passengers should fly via MUC
and their whole travel would take around 15 hours.
is well managed and excellent company which is very prosperous. However, other big airlines aren't as well managed and so there involves many risks as being a big. Constantly changing market and evolving industry makes the life of huge airlines challenging as they aren't so fast to streamline operations and costs as fast as smaller airlines. A good example in my opinion is the airline industry in the US. There you can clearly see what is the result if there is just a few very huge major airlines who are incapable to streamline their operations to new lower levels.
Fastest and smartest will always survive... like SN
Brussels, Finnair, TAP or Aer Lingus...just to mention a few. We will also see new major hubs in Europe because many of the current hubs are too overcrowded to offer enough capacity for growing industry.