ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:07 pm

In the "NZZ am Sonntag" of Zurich is an interview with the Swiss CEO Christoph Franz (in German: http://www.nzz.ch/2005/07/24/wi/articleCZYYE.html ). He says that the long-haul aircrafts are almost full all the times and they are basically satisfied with the revenue on these flights. The yields on the European routes are not good at all. The biggest problems are high fuel prices and the strongly expanding LCCs. It is quite a long interview. I don't have time to translate all. There are also statements about the negotiations with Swiss Pilots (former Crossair pilots). He claims that Swiss tries to solve the problems with dismissals because of reducing the regional fleet. They make the offer to help the dismissed pilots finding a new job with an other airline and even pay them there retraining courses to other aircraft types. He also mentions the reorganization steps with LH. Swiss is considering to change to LH terminal in FRA and MUC as LH probably does to Swiss terminal in ZRH.

[Edited 2005-07-24 15:13:38]
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:15 pm

...says SWISS!

If it's true? We don't know!

They also told the public that the new fare system (a certain amount of low fares) is working very well. Obviously not. They were also saying that the new food concept (food and drinks only against cash) was a great success and that customers gave a very positive feed back). Obviously not! (since they have abandonned this concept).

Seems like the "euphorism" after the LH deal is already gone. No additional longhaul routes planned. Now the oil price is the excuse for the next losses- oh and yes, those stupid low fares airlines who make money! Last time it was SARS, Iraq. Who is next? Oh yeah, those stupid terrorists in London and Egypt!

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:34 pm

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 1):
Now the oil price is the excuse for the next losses- oh and yes, those stupid low fares airlines who make money!

You are polemic. Please read the interview. He does not say anything about "stupid LCCs". He only brings up the facts. You are comparing apples with pears. No legacy airline like LH, AF, BA, IB, SK, OS etc is able to make profit on most European routes at the moment. They have different goals. The LCCs can fly on low cost base point to point routes whereas the legacy carriers have long-haul flights which they have to feed. The business of an LCC and a legacy carrier is simply not the same although they both fly. It is of course only business decision to have long-haul or not (at Swiss now it is a decision of LH) but when you have long-haul then you have to feed them and is simply not possible to act like a LCC because you depend on flights to your respective hub.
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:59 pm

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
He does not say anything about "stupid LCCs".

Not there, but here:

http://www.baz.ch/news/index.cfm?Obj...7DED4B4-60CF-2062-F4903D8055F2CECA

"The low fares airlines will operate an additional 90 planes this year. THEREFORE we are not able to...

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
He only brings up the facts.

Facts who are faked. No doubt revenue on longhaul is doing way better than on shorthaul. If someone flies HAM-ZRH-JFK for the price of 800 CHF, the longhaul part will receive 600 CHF and the shorthaul part will receive 200 (or even less in most cases). It's all a question of "accounting".

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
You are comparing apples with pears.

Oh yes, like everytime when I bring up some hard facts...

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 2):
No legacy airline like LH, AF, BA, IB, SK, OS etc is able to make profit on most European routes at the moment

Yes sure, they fly around Europe just for fun. Do you really think that BA, LH etc. only fly for the transfer pax? If so they could reduce its operations and reduce its costs dramatically. But they don't do it.

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:10 pm

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 3):
Yes sure, they fly around Europe just for fun.

You don't seem to read my posts. I did not say that they fly these routes for fun in contrary I said that the are DEPENDENT on them because they have to feed their long-hauls.

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 3):
Oh yes, like everytime when I bring up some hard facts...

I am wondering what hard facts you brought? Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally. Actually I love to have as many air connections from any airport and don't rally care which airline operates it, LCC or legacy both is ok for me.
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:20 pm

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
You don't seem to read my posts. I did not say that they fly these routes for fun in contrary I said that the are DEPENDENT on them because they have to feed their long-hauls.

According to your logic, BA could operate a CRJ on LHR-NCE to pick up the "feeding passengers". But they fly with 767s to NCE. If they would only fly around "feeding passengers", then they could reduce their operations drastically, operating with a few 737s, CRJs and Avros. But they don't do it. Also their hub in Gatwick flies around mainly o/d passengers. Or Lufthansa could cut all intra-German flights apart from the flights to/from MUC and FRA.

Why are they flying around then if it is so loss making for them??????

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
I am wondering what hard facts you brought?

Maybe the financial facts about Crossair-Swissair in the last topic about the Saab2000? Your answer to that is still missing. (You don't need to answer here since I dont want to ruin your topic).

Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):
Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally

True. Do you have a problem with it?

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:44 pm

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 5):
Quoting ZRH (Reply 4):Usually when there is any thread about Swiss you only act very emotionally
True. Do you have a problem with it?

Yes I do because I don't see any sense in it and find it somehow ridiculous. For me aviation is business (although fun too). The more flight connection from Switzerland we have the better for the economy. As I said I really don't care which airline does it.

BTW the topic of the Saab 2000 you brought up I did not answer because I don't know the facts. You said you have the facts from some people of Hello but you did not yet release any reliable source. But as I said several times an airline like Hello probably can operate with such costs (although Patroni doubts it, he seems to be in airline business) but for a legacy carrier it is not possible. Probably it would be best for Swiss only to concentrate in Europe on feeding flights and do it without any regional point to point connections. This would be a chance for an new airline or for LCCs to expand on these routes. If you really want to start a new airline it is a good idea and wish you luck with it.

Actually for me the long-haul flights are much more important than the most European routes because within Europe you have to many destinations other possibilities (to many cities you are even faster with high speed trains), for this I think long-haul should have priority. The other destinations will in the future be well served by LCCs.
 
cambrian
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:45 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:20 am

From the passenger's point of view, Swiss is hard to beat.
But I find it strange that Swiss is now citing competition from LCC's as a factor in their current problems, when they have all but abandoned airports like GVA and BSL, leaving the field wide open for LCC's to come in.

Surely there are lucrative markets in BSL and GVA that Swiss are ideally placed to serve, but they are only focused on ZRH. I fly Swiss Business from London to lots of cities in Europe and like the connections that Swiss offers. There used to be so many connections through GVA and BSL, but these are becoming fewer and fewer, not to mention that LX no longer even serve Heathrow from Geneva or Basle.

It is a real shame to see the demise and retreat of Swiss from a high yield city like GVA.

I know that more bases mean more costs, but Swiss does not seem to have the drive and determination to serve these lucrative markets from Geneva and Basle.
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:40 am

RJ100,

"Facts who are faked. No doubt revenue on longhaul is doing way better than on shorthaul. If someone flies HAM-ZRH-JFK for the price of 800 CHF, the longhaul part will receive 600 CHF and the shorthaul part will receive 200 (or even less in most cases). It's all a question of "accounting"."

-I've been reading your comments for a while now, and I must say Your a real genius at times.

Are you going to criticize Lufthansa, for their $800 Montreal-Munich-Dusseldorf fare?

Do you have any comprehension for revenue management?

Most, if not, all airlines are turning more and more to long-haul to make up the revenue shortfall from short-haul LCC competition. Alitalia just announced, in their master business plan, that international will be the only way they can prosper in the future.

So much to say that Lufthansa will give Swiss 2 incremental planes.

Methinks, your a bitter man from Basle who has developed a negative attitude for Swiss since they've dropped a lot of BSL flying. Now that Swiss joins star, they are in a better position to capture lucrative east-west/north-south flows
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:50 am

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
Yes I do because I don't see any sense in it and find it somehow ridiculous.

Ah thanks.

So being pro Crossair and pro short-haul is ridiculous while pro longhaul, pro Swissair/SWISS is ok.

So, all the people who lost the jobs @Crossair they should simply shut up. How would you have reacted if it was decided that ALL the ex-SR staff would have been laid off in 2001?

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
BTW the topic of the Saab 2000 you brought up I did not answer because I don't know the facts.

That's pretty strange. You always told me that Crossair was only making money due to the Swissair contract. And now I bring up the facts and prove that it was not so and you simply say you do not have the facts? Come on...

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
You said you have the facts from some people of Hello but you did not yet release any reliable source

And I will continue to keep my contact persons secret. SWISS police is reading the forums too. They don't like if someone tells the truth.

BTW, if you don't believe the numbers I have posted then you can simply go to the next library and see the SAirGroup financial reports from the last few years. You will get the same numbers.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
I've been reading your comments for a while now, and I must say Your a real genius at times

No need to get personal. If you have a problem with my posts then simply prove the opposite with some numbers.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
Are you going to criticize Lufthansa, for their $800 Montreal-Munich-Dusseldorf fare?

I'm not going to criticise LH for that because LH did not kill a well working airline before. And because LH seems to do fine with the $800 while SWISS does not do fine (oviously according to their financial results). And because LH is not doing some strange accounting and then is blaming the shorthaul part...

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
So much to say that Lufthansa will give Swiss 2 incremental planes.

This is not confirmed and uncertain at the moment.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 8):
Methinks, your a bitter man from Basle who has developed a negative attitude for Swiss since they've dropped a lot of BSL flying.

Don't worry about me. I am actually a very calm person in my real life, enjoying my life. I am not bitter at all.

I am simply posting my opinion here since I am allowed to do that. If you do not like it, ok, I will continue to post my opinion. If you think everything went fine in SWISS aviation you are simply wrong. It is definitely not how things in a "civilized" country should work. Oh I see, I have a different opinion on that and different opinions are not welcomed. Dream on guys with your longhaul hub. The past showed how well it worked. And at the moment it shows again how well it works. What I forgot: Probably the 7 Saabs based in BSL are the real problem of SWISS. They are the cause of the SWISS losses. Imagine that! SWISS longhaul is such a great success, they have biiiiiig profits. But the 7 Saabs are so loss making that the whole company is in the red numbers! They should immediately lay them off!

RJ100
none
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:14 am

"No need to get personal. If you have a problem with my posts then simply prove the opposite with some numbers."

-Perhaps you should try to shed some numbers that prove your "opinion". The burden of proof is on you, not the board.

"I'm not going to criticise LH for that because LH did not kill a well working airline before. And because LH seems to do fine with the $800 while SWISS does not do fine (oviously according to their financial results). And because LH is not doing some strange accounting and then is blaming the shorthaul part..."

-You still dont know what Swiss's overall yield/RASM/average fares are like.. so your example is anecdotal at best.

"I am simply posting my opinion here since I am allowed to do that. If you do not like it, ok, I will continue to post my opinion. If you think everything went fine in SWISS aviation you are simply wrong. It is definitely not how things in a "civilized" country should work. Oh I see, I have a different opinion on that and different opinions are not welcomed. Dream on guys with your longhaul hub. The past showed how well it worked. And at the moment it shows again how well it works. What I forgot: Probably the 7 Saabs based in BSL are the real problem of SWISS. They are the cause of the SWISS losses. Imagine that! SWISS longhaul is such a great success, they have biiiiiig profits. But the 7 Saabs are so loss making that the whole company is in the red numbers! They should immediately lay them off!"

-Again, long-haul is what Swiss shareholders, investors are attracted to. Lufthansa alone decided to acquire Swiss on the basis of their long-haul capabilities. There is no conspiracy, perhaps you should just give it up.

Again, the burden of proof is on you.
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:16 am

FLYYUL: I totally agree with your post. Some bitter people around here just can't let go. They are going on and on and on about what LX does, or doesn't do. Whatever happens, Swiss is FANTASTIC, with or without a minihub in BSL
.....up there with the best!
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 9):
You always told me that Crossair was only making money due to the Swissair contract.

I never told this. I said that it seems that Crossair needed the money from Swissair to survive otherwise Moritz Suter would never ever have sold his company. I think this is obvious because he really did not like Swissair. I am really convinced that most point to point flights from secondary airports will be run only by LCCs in the future. The legacy airlines will only operate the really big point to point routes and the feeding flights to their hubs.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:21 am

This thread is a bit intense for me........

I have a simple question, if the LX European network is not performing up to expectations (having easyjet is your backyard cannot make things easier), do you think that LH will maintain a full schedule of European flights at ZRH?
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:28 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13):
do you think that LH will maintain a full schedule of European flights at ZRH?

It depends: if LH really wants to keep up the long-haul operations out of Zurich (like they promised) then they have to have a full schedule feeding net (by LX or LH planes). When they reduce the long-haul operations they also can reduce European flights.
 
cambrian
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:45 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:29 am

Dutchjet,

I agree- can we have some posts related to the topic, and not personal vendettas?

I think that the idea that full service carriers are not making money on shorthaul in Europe is quite worrying, especially when fixed costs for many carriers have already been pared to the bone.
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:36 am

Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 12):
I never told this.

You wrote on the 17th of March 2005: "Crossair was heavily dependent on Swissair and would have not survived by its own."

I can do a quick search and find more of your phrases if you want to. You say you don't have the facts for that, why are you stating such a thing then then?

And AirMale: Again, I'm not bitter at all. Actually I am the one looking in the future. And this is why I do not agree with SWISS. THEY are the ones living in the past.

And I live in a prosperous region, economically doing very well (while Switzerland in general and the region of Zurich has a rather disappointing performance). Do you really think the success of our region stands or falls with SWISS' decision to base a few lousy aircraft here?

Don't you worry, we are already living in the future while ZRH is still in the past. After Geneva in the 90s and Basel in 2001-2004 it is now ZRH's turn to receive the "big bang".

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:39 am

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 16):
You wrote on the 17th of March 2005: "Crossair was heavily dependent on Swissair and would have not survived by its own."

Yes I wrote this but you should have brought the context. I clearly said that Moritz Suter only had sold "his baby" because they needed the money.
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:48 am

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 16):
And I live in a prosperous region, economically doing very well (while Switzerland in general and the region of Zurich has a rather disappointing performance)

Oh man bring the figures. This is simply not true. Recently there was report in the newspapers that the constructing business is increasing in all big regions in Switzerland but Basel is weakest. BTW Zurich is all the time used as the cash-cow for the rest of Switzerland, but everybody complains that we are arrogant. We pay more 1.5 billion CHF to rest of Switzerland because of a rather ridiculous finance compensation to other regions. BTW this is my last answer to such ridiculous off-topic post.
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:57 am

Well Basel has a GDP growth of 2-3% every year (since the last ten years or so). While Zurich had rather disappointing figures.

I have said in my former posts that I think Basel and Zurich should work together. Such wars we have are not how things should be and I would like to excuse myself for that. The figures are only to show that we simply do not need a few lousy SWISS airplanes here.

And construction business in Basel-Stadt is doing not so well because there is no room for expansion. It is in the outskirts of BSL where new companies and people settle down...just for your information.

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:51 am

Swiss needs a coherant redesign the European operation to bring it closer to profitability.

In 2004, 56% (highest percentage in Europe) of Swiss Zurich traffic was made of intransit connection passengers.
Its quite clear the small home market cannot support a significant long haul network without the benefit of European connection traffic to provide feed.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
swisswings
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:49 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:06 am

Thank you, AirMale. This thread is quite intensive. Guys, keep to the facts and try not to be personal. It's about aviation here and for the fun of it, personal vendettas are misplaced in this forum. You may like or dislike Swiss, their strategy and decisions, but you have to live with them. Keep cool, guys.
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:52 am

About this BSL versus ZRH, CRX versus SWR war, let's name a couple of facts:

During those glorious Crossair and Swissair days, Basel was the spoke of Moritz Suter's Eurocross. Thank's to Eurocross we also had good connections out of Bern to most European cities, feeded by up to 5 daily flights on the BRN-BSL route. It is very obvious that the Eurocross system mainly served business travelers (just look at the fares they applied).

LC Carriers normally attract the major part of it's customers from creating "new markets". Helvetic realized this by finding out that they got much less business travelers than people on the move for their vacation. For those not familiar with Helvitic.com, it's a Swiss LCC serving the "premium LC market". Someone could think that a premium LC product serves business travelers. It does obviously not.

Passengers normally traveling on LCC do not care that much where their plane leaves. They take the long ride to this airport, the LCC gets the cheap rates for landing, handling etc. Look at Ryanair... in the days, Intersky served Bern, they got customers on their flight for Berlin THF, coming from Winterthur trough whole Switzerland to board in countyside Bern airport!

Since BSL lost the Eurocross, most connections started since, are provided by LCC. Look at Easyjet....
LH was optimizing it's feeder traffic to their hubs, same they did since at Bern with their flights to MUC, which are always full.

It is quite obvious that BSL could attract LCC looking for cheaper fees than they had it at ZRH, let's name for example EasyJet or very lately SkyEurope. It is also very obvious that those passengers these companies are serving are not only from the Region of BSL. They are furthermore from the whole Swiss-French-German market, looking for a cheap departure. The conclusion then is also that those connections are not in a direct relation with the industry based in BSL. They are more on the tourist side.

Now some questions:

If the Eurocross in BSL was profitable, why did nobody take it up again, after Swiss started to shut it down?

Why did Moritz Suter launch a traditional charter airline by setting up Hello and did not go for an Eurocross back up?

Why could the EuroConnect project of a BSL based regional airline, using mainly ATR's (set up by former Crossair employees) never be realized?

Conclusion:

It is obvious, there is a market in BSL. The Eurocross system may have worked in the "System Crossair" as a total. This does not mean that it works in a "System Swiss". It is also more than logic, that Swiss International Air Lines is trying to concentrate it's activities on one single hub. I am very sorry for the guys in BSL, but this hub is in first priority ZRH. This is nothing than logic.

I can understand the big frustration with former Crossair employees, friends and supporters as well as in the BSL region. But we also need to be realistic. Not everything created (or terminated) by Swiss was bad or wrong. Just to remember: The first CEO of Swiss was André Dosé who was during his entire carrier with Crossair! In the end of a movie everybody knows..... finally the market will decide. This is exactly what happened here. BSL got it's new position, the one of a strong hub serving mainly the LCC.
 
ZRH
Topic Author
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:26 am

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
During those glorious Crossair and Swissair days, Basel was the spoke of Moritz Suter's Eurocross. Thank's to Eurocross we also had good connections out of Bern to most European cities, feeded by up to 5 daily flights on the BRN-BSL route. It is very obvious that the Eurocross system mainly served business travelers (just look at the fares they applied).

LC Carriers normally attract the major part of it's customers from creating "new markets". Helvetic realized this by finding out that they got much less business travelers than people on the move for their vacation. For those not familiar with Helvitic.com, it's a Swiss LCC serving the "premium LC market". Someone could think that a premium LC product serves business travelers. It does obviously not.

Passengers normally traveling on LCC do not care that much where their plane leaves. They take the long ride to this airport, the LCC gets the cheap rates for landing, handling etc. Look at Ryanair... in the days, Intersky served Bern, they got customers on their flight for Berlin THF, coming from Winterthur trough whole Switzerland to board in countyside Bern airport!

Since BSL lost the Eurocross, most connections started since, are provided by LCC. Look at Easyjet....
LH was optimizing it's feeder traffic to their hubs, same they did since at Bern with their flights to MUC, which are always full.

It is quite obvious that BSL could attract LCC looking for cheaper fees than they had it at ZRH, let's name for example EasyJet or very lately SkyEurope. It is also very obvious that those passengers these companies are serving are not only from the Region of BSL. They are furthermore from the whole Swiss-French-German market, looking for a cheap departure. The conclusion then is also that those connections are not in a direct relation with the industry based in BSL. They are more on the tourist side.

Now some questions:

If the Eurocross in BSL was profitable, why did nobody take it up again, after Swiss started to shut it down?

Why did Moritz Suter launch a traditional charter airline by setting up Hello and did not go for an Eurocross back up?

Why could the EuroConnect project of a BSL based regional airline, using mainly ATR's (set up by former Crossair employees) never be realized?

Conclusion:

It is obvious, there is a market in BSL. The Eurocross system may have worked in the "System Crossair" as a total. This does not mean that it works in a "System Swiss". It is also more than logic, that Swiss International Air Lines is trying to concentrate it's activities on one single hub. I am very sorry for the guys in BSL, but this hub is in first priority ZRH. This is nothing than logic.

I can understand the big frustration with former Crossair employees, friends and supporters as well as in the BSL region. But we also need to be realistic. Not everything created (or terminated) by Swiss was bad or wrong. Just to remember: The first CEO of Swiss was André Dosé who was during his entire carrier with Crossair! In the end of a movie everybody knows..... finally the market will decide. This is exactly what happened here. BSL got it's new position, the one of a strong hub serving mainly the LCC.

Couldn't agree more!
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:29 am

Hi!

You guys know that everytime there is a nice topic about SWISS I'll be there!!! First of all it's interesting to see that most of the users talking in this topic are swiss and we must understand, respect and above all (when we write... ) be wise because we are outsiders in most of these issues. I feel that after reading all the words ( and specially from our swiss friends... ) that there are some wounds regading the end of Swissair, Crossair, Crossair taking over Swissair network that need to be healed, and that will take some time. In my point of view ( and this is truly an outsider point of view, but sometimes someone from outside can have a better prespective, so please understand that... ) what happened to Swissair was sad, the take over by Crossair was in my prespective the best possible option at that time and maybe the mentality of a truly regional/european/charter focused airline like Crossair shocked a lot with the global/international/historic heritage airline like Swissair, and that pays, but nothing else could be donne. So for me what was donne was donne, some mistakes but we always learn with our mistakes. SWISS started weak but now seeing the past, specially the last 2 years, SWISS started to get stronger and at this point we don't see any more topics about how many months SWISS will last but we see SWISS has an airline that has legs to walk and it is going steady and firm!
I do agree that SWISS product is better than any other historic airline, last time I flew SWISS was in December 2003, LAX-ZRH, then I had the chance to fly on long-haul flights with TAP ( LIS-RIO-LIS ) and KLM ( AMS-KIX-AMS ) and you know what, SWISS product is good, the fleet is good, the service is good like any other airline, so SWISS is going good!
If we look to european network, not so good, but Europe is no longer a market for a lot of "flowers" or big expectations, Europe market is beeing more and more like North America market, some basic services and that's it. I still feel that in North America some flights should have a better service, if you fly more than 3 hours at least you could have a basic meal service and some amenities like a movie, etc. etc. But in Europe you you want to fly only far countries like Portugal, Greece, Turkey or Russia will get flights longer than 3 hours, so a truly basic service it's enough. I flew from AMS to LIS with KLM, it took us almost 3 hours and I got in both ways I got a breakfast on LIS-AMS flight and a light meal from AMS-LIS flight, very nice, cool... but enough!!! I think SWISS geeting again some basic meal service on european flights it will be good for them and I'm sure will increase the figures but we must agree that the times are different now ( I still remember flying most around Europe and having hot lunches or dinners with full complementary services.... great days!!! ) and we must adapt. But intercontinental service needs more and more to get better, we pass many hours inside a plane and we need as better treatment, and SWISS gives that!
Regards
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
avion
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:28 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:54 am

Hi

I for one think that RJ100 has a point. How does Swiss split up the revenues for a HAM-ZRH-LAX flight? A while ago i read that they split according to flight distance. In that case its no wonder that the euro part comes out doing crap. Does anybody actually know how Swiss splits up the revenue between the two parts?

Regards,
Tom
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:14 am

Hi Jose, nice statement!

Indeed the issues are quite on topic and RJ100 has a different thought on how Crossair/SWISS must have been runned from the beginning in 2002 and I respect his ideas very much!

I'am not mixing in this debate but it is very interesting on how the passengers and public react to statements of the board, so thanks!

Also Thomas, they are working on the figures for the SF340's at BSL handled by Aviapartner!
They will probably invite you in Brussels, so we could finally meet!

[Edited 2005-07-25 01:16:14]
What time is top of descent?
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:54 pm

Good morning everyone

Good to see that the discussion is lined up again on a higher niveau.

I will just quote a few statements and give my personal opinion to it (since some of the statements are directly headed to me).

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
If the Eurocross in BSL was profitable, why did nobody take it up again, after Swiss started to shut it down?

First of all, the EuroCross was profitable. I know most of you do not believe me. I can only tell you that I know it (because I met some people who have all the figures). If you don't believe it, it's your thing. But I have never seen facts telling the EuroCross was money losing. Again, the EuroCross, like Legacy135 already explained, was a high yield hub. And it was efficient. At the time when SWISS operates the first flights ex BSL today, Crossair has already completed its first flights (BRN-BSL, STR-BSL, GVA-BSL etc.). This was one major point to lower your costs (since your fixed costs are better divided).

Why does noone take up the EuroCross? Because it need YEARS to build up a hub. And after the ridiculous SWISS cuts, other carriers filled the most lucrative gaps immediately. So you cannot simply start an operation, linking Bordeaux, Basel and Bilbao. Because there is AF flying on Bordeaux-Basel and because Basel-Bilbao probably needs 2 years until it reaches profitability. It will simply break your neck. Every airline first needs routes whre they earn money, such as Basel-London, Basel-Madrid etc. But these routes are blocked.

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
Why did Moritz Suter launch a traditional charter airline by setting up Hello and did not go for an Eurocross back up?

Same reason like above. And again, I could tell you some facts about HELLO. But then again, someone will join the discussion and tell it is not so although the informations are directly from the company.  Sad

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
Why could the EuroConnect project of a BSL based regional airline, using mainly ATR's (set up by former Crossair employees) never be realized?

As far as I know it was mainly a project by a professor of the aviation institute of Basel. Probably they did not get the money together. Another reason why I dislike SWISS. They burn billions of Francs, but if someone in this country has a good idea he has no chance to get a single cent. It's not how things should go...

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
The Eurocross system may have worked in the "System Crossair" as a total.

Yes it worked very well. Giving excellent flight connections to the passengers from all over Europe (20 minutes connection time in BSL, saving 2-3 hours per way)- and giving work for a few thousand employees.

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
This does not mean that it works in a "System Swiss".

Of course it could not work in the SWISS system. SWISS has realized after a few months of operations, that their hub in ZRH has a huge overcapacity (AGAIN, after the same happened to SR). In their naive misbelief, the passengers currently travelling through BSL would travel through ZRH, they closed down BSL because they needed to feed more passengers through ZRH. But the customer did not do so, because the ZRH does not have the benefits of the BSL hub (that is saving 2-3 hours per way over a connections via a large European hub).

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
I am very sorry for the guys in BSL, but this hub is in first priority ZRH. This is nothing than logic.

See above. Logic would be to keep up the hub with the better financial results, not the hub with most passengers or most prestige.

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
The first CEO of Swiss was André Dosé who was during his entire carrier with Crossair!

Yes, but he was a so-called "Marionette", a playing tool. No wonder he left the ship sooner or later...

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 22):
finally the market will decide. This is exactly what happened here. BSL got it's new position, the one of a strong hub serving mainly the LCC.

Strangely, in Switzerland the politicians do not accept this rule. That's why lots of money is spent on non-efficient things like military, agriculture and SWISS. They would rather support education (the only ressource Switzerland has) and start up companies. And no, it's not off-topic. Because a well working economy is the base for an international airline.

And funny that most people think BSL is a LCC airport. Of course they are expanding. But most airlines in BSL still live from the high yield passengers here.

@Avion, as far as I know it is still the same practice. That means that in some cases a flight NUE-ZRH gets 40 or 50 Francs...and then they blame the short haul part to be loss making.
And there is the difference to LH and why I don't blame them if they sell tickets for $500. They don't blame the shorthaul part for the bad results afterwards...

@SWISSER: Thanks for your nice comments. It is very kind of you to help me as much as you can. I hope it does not make a lot of work for you guys. But again, I'm in a very early stage of the project and I am realistic enough to know that it's a long way to go. If I'm honest, a wet lease contract is probably the best solution for a new start up since the AOC request is breaking the neck of most projects. But I'll keep you updated.

Thanks again, best regards and a good day to all of you.

Thomas
none
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: LX: Revenue On Long-Haul Ok, But Not In Europe

Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:07 am

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 27):
@SWISSER: Thanks for your nice comments. It is very kind of you to help me as much as you can. I hope it does not make a lot of work for you guys. But again, I'm in a very early stage of the project and I am realistic enough to know that it's a long way to go. If I'm honest, a wet lease contract is probably the best solution for a new start up since the AOC request is breaking the neck of most projects. But I'll keep you updated.

Yes, off course!
I explained it very clearly to them and if you are in further plans in the future you will certainly be invited!
any potential customer is respected as a customer, that's our policy!
What time is top of descent?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerolimani, AR385, audidudi, Bing [Bot], Borut, CrimsonNL, floorrunner, flyingclrs727, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], ikolkyo, jetblastdubai, Jetstar315, LovesCoffee, MattSYD, SCQ83, seanpmassey, SXDFC, The777Man, VirginFlyer, zrs70 and 213 guests