MarkChief
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 am

KL672 YUL-AMS

Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:51 pm

Hi,

I want to know why this flight is often delayed? Is the use of MD11 on this route have an impact on the delays?

Cheers,

Mark
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:36 pm

KL671/672 is the weak point of the KLM longhaul operation these days, as it is one of the last MD11 operated flights to leave AMS, and any MD11 irregularity, of which there are many, will often impact this flight. KL671/672 is very often operated by replacement aircraft (B74E, B744, B772). Over the past 2 days, KLM even leasen a Martinair (MP) B763ER to operate the YUL roundtrip, and last night's KL672 YUL AMS is delayed overnight until Sunday morning because of crew related issues pertaining to the MP B763. Given the MD11s questionable dispatch reliability and the heavy flying program for the MD11 fleet, it is more than likely that many more operational irregularities will occur with KL671/672 over the course of this summer.
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:39 pm

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):
Over the past 2 days, KLM even leasen a Martinair (MP) B763ER to operate the YUL roundtrip

Seems like a very effective way of loosing customers to other carriers to me...
I read the CUR flights also have been operated by the MP 767 and customers weren't very happy, especially the ones that booked WBC and end up in the Premium Economy section of MP.

Edit: Doesn't AF have spares available that could do the KL rotations? Yes, it does involve two ferry flights but I don't know how happy I would be choosing KLM again if they would put me on a 767 in charter config for 8 hours.

[Edited 2007-04-22 12:44:24]
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:00 pm

I will be flying YUL-AMS in May and was wondering the same thing as MarkChief. I noticed that in the last two weeks, however, it had done pretty well, although several types were operated: MD11, 777, 744 (and now an MP 763).

A few questions for HB-IWC:

1. When a 777 or 744 is used to operate the flight from AMS to YUL when the MD11 becomes unavailable, how do they deal with the crew issues? In the past two weeks, they've used different equipment and the flights were still on time. This has to involve some planning (usually the day before) to ensure that a front-end crew is in place to fly the return flight the next day, right? Would the crews deadhead the day before?

2. It's strange that last night's flight (Saturday p.m.) would be delayed due to "crew issues" as the Friday flight was also operated by an MP 763. A crew should have already been in place (unless they deadheaded somewhere else to operate another flight).
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:41 am

KLM should try to save-face on this route and put an A330 or B777. The A330 has 6 more J seats than the MD11, this really is a non-issue all things considered.

Over the course of the last 2-3 years, KLM671/672 has been quite often signficantly delayed or cancelled. Im sure frequent flyer's on this route has been affected in one way or another.
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:17 pm

Quoting Matt (Reply 3):
1. When a 777 or 744 is used to operate the flight from AMS to YUL when the MD11 becomes unavailable, how do they deal with the crew issues? In the past two weeks, they've used different equipment and the flights were still on time. This has to involve some planning (usually the day before) to ensure that a front-end crew is in place to fly the return flight the next day, right? Would the crews deadhead the day before?

To the best of my knowledge, they fly in cockpit crews from New York, where there are always a mix of B772 and B747 crews available. Our friend SK601 should be able to answer this question with more accuracy.

Quoting Matt (Reply 3):
2. It's strange that last night's flight (Saturday p.m.) would be delayed due to "crew issues" as the Friday flight was also operated by an MP 763. A crew should have already been in place (unless they deadheaded somewhere else to operate another flight).

As far as I know, the Friday inbound crew deadheaded elsewhere, so the Saturday return flight was forced to use the same crew as the Saturday inbound crew. The flight finally arrived in Amsterdam about 15 hours late.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 4):
KLM should try to save-face on this route and put an A330 or B777.

The problem is that the A332s and B772ERs are also scheduled to the very limit. What KLM should do, I believe, is to set up a more realistic widebody schedule that caters for more spare capacity, because with the dispatch reliability problems of the MD11 fleet, there are major disturbances to the longhaul network almost daily. Just yesterday KL681/YVR, operated by MD11, left AMS almost 8 hours late because of yet another technical issue and no spare capacity available.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:38 pm

Since the AMS-YUL route is the most effected, and given that aircraft substitutions seem to be frequent, roughly what percentage of the time does this route receive the MD-11 that is scheduled to fly it?
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:31 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
roughly what percentage of the time does this route receive the MD-11 that is scheduled to fly it?

My rough estimate would be that about 25 percent of the flights are operated by replacement aircraft. If we put MD11 for MD11 substitutions into the equation, the percentage would even be quite a bit higher. I estimate the dispatch reliability of the MD11 for flight KL671 in the vicinity of 60% only.
 
76er
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:04 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:06 pm

Quoting Matt (Reply 3):
It's strange that last night's flight (Saturday p.m.) would be delayed due to "crew issues" as the Friday flight was also operated by an MP 763. A crew should have already been in place (unless they deadheaded somewhere else to operate another flight).

Last night's delay was just a case of bad luck: one of the crew members (supposedly cockpit) had fallen ill.
 
Someone83
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:19 pm

For how long does KLM intend to keep their MD-11 in their fleet?
 
lamedianaranja
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:21 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:56 pm

Quoting 76er (Reply 8):
Last night's delay was just a case of bad luck

I wonder who's responsible for the costs caused by the delay in this case, KL or MP?

The flight came in last night while I was just leaving the airport, 15 hrs late as stated, at almost 10PM, so not a connection available anymore. All the passengers had to be rebooked, given a boarding pass and a hotel. Poor things, after the long wait on YUL another long night in AMS.

How much longer will MP operate the flight? Any chance of seeing you at the gate, 76er  Wink? KL groundstaff handles the departure.
I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting Lamedianaranja (Reply 10):
All the passengers had to be rebooked, given a boarding pass and a hotel. Poor things, after the long wait on YUL another long night in AMS.

Did they try to reroute anyone thru CDG?
I reckon it is far cheaper to fill up all the AF flights YUL-CDG to 100% with connecting passengers instead of keeping them overnight in AMS. For the O&D traffic a delay of 15 hours would be bad enough on itself, but at least you sleep in you own bed that night  Wink
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 11):
Did they try to reroute anyone thru CDG?
I reckon it is far cheaper to fill up all the AF flights YUL-CDG to 100% with connecting passengers instead of keeping them overnight in AMS. For the O&D traffic a delay of 15 hours would be bad enough on itself, but at least you sleep in you own bed that night Wink

I had the same exact question. Why not send some of them through CDG with AF (which has 2 flights a day)? Of course, maybe those flights are full, but I believe AF is running two 744s a day at the moment).

Also, because of all these problems with the YUL flight, is there a chance that KL changes the aircraft used for the summer period? Or are all the other aircraft deployed on other routes for the summer?
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
caribb
Posts: 1502
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:03 pm

I'm also flying KLM YUL-AMS in May and I'm hoping for no delays outbound as I have a meeting to attend in the Netherlands... and a 777 substitution inbound just because I want to fly their 777. It's too bad KLM is keeping the MD-11 on the YUL route for so long and I agree it may eventually scare off regular passengers if the delays get much worse. I'm seeing so many KLM 747s and 777s now over my home. Does anyone know when do they plan to put the A330 on the route?
 
mk777
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:48 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:57 pm

Hows the KL 871/872 flight to DEL doing with the MD-11?? Does it also get delayed like the YUL flight??
come fly with me
 
MarkChief
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:18 am

Look at this... I compiled all the flights for the AMS-YUL-AMS (KL671/672) for a period of 31 days from March 15th to April 14th. The aircraft type for this flight is normally a MD11...


DATE KL671 KL672 A/C TYPE

15 - - -
16 PH-BFU PH-BFU Boeing 747-406M
17 PH-BFR PH-BFR Boeing 747-406M
18 PH-BQI PH-BQI Boeing 777-206/ER
19 PH-BQI PH-BQI Boeing 777-206/ER
20 PH-BFB PH-BFB Boeing 747-406
21 PH-BFB PH-BFB Boeing 747-406
22 PH-BFN PH-BFN Boeing 747-406
23 PH-BFI PH-BFI Boeing 747-406M
24 PH-BFO PH-BFO Boeing 747-406M
25 PH-BQF PH-BQF Boeing 777-206/ER
26 PH-KCA PH-KCA McDonnell Douglas MD-11
27 PH-KCB PH-KCB McDonnell Douglas MD-11
28 PH-BFB PH-BFB Boeing 747-406
29 PH-BFB PH-BFB Boeing 747-406
30 PH-BFH PH-BFH Boeing 747-406M
31 PH-KCB PH-KCB McDonnell Douglas MD-11
1 PH-BQA PH-BQA Boeing 777-206/ER
2 PH-KCE PH-KCE McDonnell Douglas MD-11
3 PH-BFE PH-BFE Boeing 747-406M
4 PH-KCD PH-KCD McDonnell Douglas MD-11
5 PH-KCF - McDonnell Douglas MD-11
6 PH-BFA PH-KCF/PH-BFA Boeing 747-406
7 PH-BFS PH-BFS Boeing 747-406M
8 PH-BQG PH-BQG Boeing 777-206/ER
9 PH-KCD PH-KCD McDonnell Douglas MD-11
10 PH-KCB PH-KCB McDonnell Douglas MD-11
11 PH-KCA PH-KCA McDonnell Douglas MD-11
12 - -
13 PH-BFN PH-BFN Boeing 747-406
14 PH-KCG PH-KCG McDonnell Douglas MD-11


STATS: 14/31 Boeing 747-406/Boeing 747-406M
5/31 Boeing 777-206/ER
10/31 McDonnell Douglas MD-11
2/31 CANCELLED


For this period, the reliability of the MD11 (around 35%) is very poor. This is very sad because the MD11 is such a great aircraft. I hope KLM will fix up the problems.

Cheers,

Mark
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting MarkChief (Reply 15):
This is very sad because the MD11 is such a great aircraft

It's bad, very bad and so it the M11.
It never sold well and it's a pain for KL to operate. It may look nice, but so does a 346...
The M11 is causing problems since a long time, it's not temporal nor easily solved. Rumours are KL is about to ditch the M11 earlier than planned; I wonder why they didn't do that earlier because as you prove with your stats the term "The Reliable Airline" is nothing but an empty marketing slogan if the dispatch reliability of (a part of) the fleet lies at 35%...
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:57 am

If YUL is KLM's lowest yielding North American market, then it is logical that YUL will bear the brunt of equipment changes and delays to ensure that other North American markets are served better and more consistently (thus protecting their more valuable yields).

Ideally, no market should suffer undue equipment changes and poor OTP, but if a general fleet performance shortfall is happening at KLM, better to sacrifice the lower yielding markets.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:49 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 16):
It's bad, very bad and so it the M11.

If the plane is crap KLM would have replaced it earlier in the decade. The KLM MD-11's were among the highest PIP packaged airframes, along with the Swissair Advanced Heavy jets. I don't remember hearing MD-11 problems with KLM in the '90s or earlier in the decade for that matter.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 17):
If YUL is KLM's lowest yielding North American market, then it is logical that YUL will bear the brunt of equipment changes and delays to ensure that other North American markets are served better and more consistently

If one route is experiencing all the problems while others are running fairly smoothly then the MX problems can not be among the entire 10 strong fleet. Does anyone know which reg. # airframes are problematic?
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
SB
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:29 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:13 pm

Well, on the bright side we do see variety of aircraft with the KLM flights - always a nice surprise at work.

The delays are unfortunate though.

S.
"Confirm leave the hold and maintain 320kts?!"
 
MarkChief
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:36 pm

Hi,

Anybody here knows the load factor on this route?

Thanks,

Mark
 
lamedianaranja
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:21 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:50 pm

Quoting MarkChief (Reply 20):
Anybody here knows the load factor on this route?

Not officially but all KL Canada flights always seem to be pretty full, even overflowing.
I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:06 pm

Quoting MarkChief (Reply 20):
Anybody here knows the load factor on this route?

All KL load-factors are accessible thru www.amadeus.net, just go to Flight Status and then enter the route, in this case AMS-YUL and the desired date and you will get the load-factor. Today it left with 266 pax.
I emailed KLM about the fact they are leaking their load factors on the web, but they decided to give me a standard reply so I'm happy sharing this "leak" with you.

This also works for KLM Cityhopper flights.
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4033
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:28 pm

Quoting MarkChief (Reply 15):
Look at this... I compiled all the flights for the AMS-YUL-AMS (KL671/672) for a period of 31 days from March 15th to April 14th. The aircraft type for this flight is normally a MD11...

Although your sample is not very representative because the past month or so things have definitely taken a turn for the worse, the MD11 is indeed suffering from great shortfalls in dispatch reliability. The reason that the statistics for the AMS YUL route look so bad is that whenever MD11 problems occur, it is mostly the YUL route which is sacrificed for delays/cancellations/aircraft substitutions.

Quoting MarkChief (Reply 15):
For this period, the reliability of the MD11 (around 35%) is very poor. This is very sad because the MD11 is such a great aircraft. I hope KLM will fix up the problems.

Your number is somewhat misleading in that it only considers one particular route. KLM deploys the MD11 on many other routes, and you should take that into account in your reliability calculations. Again, the fact is that most MD11 problems are shifted to the KL671/672 AMS YUL AMS flights because that is where the airline has sufficient flexibility to overcome these problems.

As it goes, the overall dispatch reliability of the 10-strong KLM MD11 fleet is in the region of 90%. That may look like high, but it is actually pretty abyssmal. Dispatch reliability rates with big airlines are commonly in the 98-99.9% range.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 17):
If YUL is KLM's lowest yielding North American market, then it is logical that YUL will bear the brunt of equipment changes and delays to ensure that other North American markets are served better and more consistently (thus protecting their more valuable yields).

Ideally, no market should suffer undue equipment changes and poor OTP, but if a general fleet performance shortfall is happening at KLM, better to sacrifice the lower yielding markets.

While I agree completely with what you are saying, the KLM strategy seems to be somewhat different. The entire MD11-fleet is deployed to the airline's lowest yielding destinations, and the new cabin layout, with just 24 premium seats is indicative of that shift in mission. As such, KLM deploys the MD11 to such destinations as YUL, YVR, CUR, SXM, AUA, BON, UIO, GYE, ACC, JRO, DAR, DEL and HYD.

The reason that YUL is mostly suffering from operational instability of the MD11 fleet is because of the particular fact that KL671 AMS YUL is one of the last MD11 flights to leave AMS, with the notable exception of the KL753 BON GYE UIO flight, which leaves much later, around midnight. As such, any MD11 problems are always shifted to this last daylight departure, which happens to be AMS YUL. That is where the delays/cancellations/aircraft changes happen. An added advantage of using YUL for these swaps [and not YVR, which leaves just about around the same time] is the vicinity of New York, where there are always B747 and B772 crews available which can be deadheaded to YUL in case of operational issues.
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 23):
An added advantage of using YUL for these swaps [and not YVR, which leaves just about around the same time] is the vicinity of New York, where there are always B747 and B772 crews available which can be deadheaded to YUL in case of operational issues.

Thanks for the detailed response. Regarding the availability of 744 and 777 (and MD11) crews in NYC, would deadheading to YUL not affect the NYC operations? I would imagine that the crews are in NYC for 24 hours and thus required to fly the trip back to AMS...
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:29 pm

Quoting Matt (Reply 24):

Thanks for the detailed response. Regarding the availability of 744 and 777 (and MD11) crews in NYC, would deadheading to YUL not affect the NYC operations? I would imagine that the crews are in NYC for 24 hours and thus required to fly the trip back to AMS...

I recon the crew that came of the AMS-YUL flight deadheads to NYC (before or after rest) and picks up the JFK-AMS flight
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:16 am

Quoting JRadier (Reply 25):
I recon the crew that came of the AMS-YUL flight deadheads to NYC (before or after rest) and picks up the JFK-AMS flight

The thing is that pilots are usually rated for one specific type of aircraft. If the 777 crew, for example, deadheads to YUL from NYC to operate a sub, who is going to fly the 777 from NYC to AMS? I'm sure this is a nightmare for crew scheduling.
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:31 am

Is it likely that KL would drop YUL eventually and leave it to AF?
It could make sense to me as :
- AF will add even more flights soon
- YUL is low yielding for KL
- YUL is high yielding for AF (well, reasonably high at least I guess, as YUL gets some F seats but not on each flight, and will get the A380)
- AF and KL have been re-organizing their network and both have dropped destinations on which their partner was much more established and competitive
- AF can't fly to YVR and KL does, so AF would take the East and KL the West.

Even though I'd love to see the MD11 around for a little while because I have yet to fly on one -and being in YUL that's my chance!-, I think that it would be a wise decision, and nothing compares to AF service over the N Atlantic. (even though I've never flown the new KL standard, but the MD11 certainly does not have it!)
When I doubt... go running!
 
SB
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:29 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:50 am

KLM has been in Montreal for longer than I can remember. As a wee little one we always flew KLM business to Europe from YMX.

Is that a reason to stay? Probably not, but KLM is a well known name here (and has the monopoly on a route which is fairly full) It would seem silly to leave if the route works.

S.
"Confirm leave the hold and maintain 320kts?!"
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27):
- YUL is low yielding for KL

The presence of the MD11 suggests good loads and satisfactory revenue performance. The MD11 very much is an expensive airplane to fly. KL would be insane to fly a high cost airplane on a marginal route, it makes very little economic sense.

The same could be said for Air France. One of YUL's frequencies is an 18J/457Y airplane. These are the same planes to fly CDG-PUJ/HAV etc.

Canada is a lower-yield market as a whole. There is very little demand for F, whether it be YUL/YYZ or YVR.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 29):
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27):
- YUL is low yielding for KL

The presence of the MD11 suggests good loads and satisfactory revenue performance. The MD11 very much is an expensive airplane to fly. KL would be insane to fly a high cost airplane on a marginal route, it makes very little economic sense.

Actually, generally the opposite is true. Airlines allocate the newest and most efficient aircraft onto the highest yielding routes to ensure good OTP and a good brand. The lower margin routes get the older less efficient aircraft since OTP and in-flight service standards are less important.

The M11 also has a lower % of J seats, indicative of a low yielding market on all its routes, including, I would presume YUL.

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 23):
The entire MD11-fleet is deployed to the airline's lowest yielding destinations, and the new cabin layout, with just 24 premium seats is indicative of that shift in mission. As such, KLM deploys the MD11 to such destinations as YUL, YVR, CUR, SXM, AUA, BON, UIO, GYE, ACC, JRO, DAR, DEL and HYD.

Makes sense to allocate the older M11 to the poorest performing routes, yield wise.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 29):
KL would be insane to fly a high cost airplane on a marginal route, it makes very little economic sense.

When capital costs are considered, the M11 actually is a very cheap airplane to operate for KL.
The lease rates on the M11 are very low; for this very reason TAM is now operating the M11 as well.
Both TAM and KLM will replace the M11 with better products that might be cheaper and more reliable to operate in terms of fuel-burn and MX (eg 77W), but these new planes are much more expensive to operate when you consider the capital costs (acquisition, insurance, etc).
 
MarkChief
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:30 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27):
Is it likely that KL would drop YUL eventually and leave it to AF?
It could make sense to me as :
- AF will add even more flights soon
- YUL is low yielding for KL
- YUL is high yielding for AF (well, reasonably high at least I guess, as YUL gets some F seats but not on each flight, and will get the A380)
- AF and KL have been re-organizing their network and both have dropped destinations on which their partner was much more established and competitive
- AF can't fly to YVR and KL does, so AF would take the East and KL the West.

I don't think KLM wants to drop service at YUL because they offer very good connections for other destinations at their main hub, Schiphol airport. It's also in their interest to keep a good visibility in the east of the country.
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting Matt (Reply 26):
The thing is that pilots are usually rated for one specific type of aircraft. If the 777 crew, for example, deadheads to YUL from NYC to operate a sub, who is going to fly the 777 from NYC to AMS? I'm sure this is a nightmare for crew scheduling.

As the 777 comes in from AMS a crew can be flown NYC-YUL to take the ship back. The crew from the inbound flight will then dead-head to NYC to, after sufficient rest, fly that flight back, instead of the crew that flew to YUL.

Hope that makes sense!

/Robert
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 30):
Actually, generally the opposite is true. Airlines allocate the newest and most efficient aircraft onto the highest yielding routes to ensure good OTP and a good brand. The lower margin routes get the older less efficient aircraft since OTP and in-flight service standards are less important.

The M11 also has a lower % of J seats, indicative of a low yielding market on all its routes, including, I would presume YUL.

Counter productive for profit optimization.

"When capital costs are considered, the M11 actually is a very cheap airplane to operate for KL"

-Thats a non-factor when considering fleet deployment. KL has to pay ownership on the M11 or A330 equally per block hour irregardless of the route at hand. Variable cost is the biggest cost component, as fuel consumption varies by stage length.

Ownership represents 10-15% of total fully allocated costs.

Remember the old Northwest argument, at reasonable fuel prices, the DC9 and DC10 models made money as they were totally depreciated?
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 34):
Counter productive for profit optimization.

Nonsense. Profit maximization is reached by applying the most intense capital solution (i.e. newest aircraft) at the highest yielding route, to ensure that high yield is serviced the best.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 34):
Ownership represents 10-15% of total fully allocated costs.

No. Ownership cost allocation varies greatly depending on fleet age, owned vs. leased, capital vs operating lease.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 34):
Remember the old Northwest argument, at reasonable fuel prices, the DC9 and DC10 models made money as they were totally depreciated?

Did they make this argument before or after their Ch11 filing? Not sure NWA is a good source for capital efficiency arguments.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:06 am

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 35):
Nonsense. Profit maximization is reached by applying the most intense capital solution (i.e. newest aircraft) at the highest yielding route, to ensure that high yield is serviced the best.

Ok, so then allocation is not based on profit maximization?
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 34):
Counter productive for profit optimization.

Sorry but why is a small number of J seats counter productive for profit optimization? Last time I checked it was still very unprofitable to fly empty seats around.

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 34):
Thats a non-factor when considering fleet deployment. KL has to pay ownership on the M11 or A330 equally per block hour irregardless of the route at hand

Yes; but the costs for the A330 will be much higher; it maybe cheaper when it comes to fuel and MX, I agree. But let's assume you're a taxi company; you own 10 1985-Mercedes cars and 10 2006-Audi's.
Let's assume people are willing to pay more for a ride in the Audi's; because they have more legroom and fit 2 pax. The Mercs are older and can take 4 pax.

Certain routes, to the airport for example, will be better served with the Audi's, whereas others, bringing teenagers home after a night out, are best served with the Mercs.

Let's assume the Audi's are much more fuel efficient, and they need a lot less maintenance. So you are inclined to use the Audi's as much as possible. But now capital costs come into play.

The Mercs are much cheaper to operate, because they have been depreciated, and insurance costs are lower; this is a reason to keep them in your taxi fleet and not replace them with Audi's until you really need to.
The more you drive your Audi's, the more kilometers they accumulate. As they make more kilometers make, the less the resell value becomes, and the more expensive they become for operating them.

So by deploying the Mercs on routes where you don't need the extra legroom, you can deploy the Audi's on more profitable routes. You save the Audi's from making unnecessary mileage and avoid they are being devalued to quickly.

Now you are free to believe I'm making things up or I'm wrong, but I am confident the management of Scandinavian Airlines for one thinks along these lines, as can be found in their annual report, http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGROUP_IR/CMSForeignContent/2006eng.pdf

Fair use excerpt:
"MD-80
The SAS Group has 82 MD-80s, with an average age of 17 years. Technical speaking, using aircraft that are 30-35 years old does not represent a problem. SAS Group aircraft are, however, usually phased out at a younger age. Efficient maintenance, low capital costs and good technical performance make the seat cost of an MD-80 highly
competitive in relation to, for example, a Boeing 737-800."
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 37):

Exactly, matching aircraft to routes only on the basis of operating costs is not efficient, even tho you might have the lowest operating costs, you create (even larger) costs somewhere else.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting GOT (Reply 33):
As the 777 comes in from AMS a crew can be flown NYC-YUL to take the ship back. The crew from the inbound flight will then dead-head to NYC to, after sufficient rest, fly that flight back, instead of the crew that flew to YUL.

Hope that makes sense!

/Robert

Yes and no. Let me explain. Let's just say that the AMS-YUL flight on Monday was operated by the MD11, as per the schedule. If the Tuesday flight that comes in is a 777, then I can see that a crew could have been deadheaded from NYC (let's say on Monday) to operate the Tuesday flight back from YUL to AMS on the 777. However, deadheading the MD11 crew (from the Monday flight) to NYC doesn't solve the problem as they are not qualified to fly the 777 from NYC to AMS. Do you see what I mean? It's not a question of crew availability, but of type rating.
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 37):
Sorry but why is a small number of J seats counter productive for profit optimization? Last time I checked it was still very unprofitable to fly empty seats around.

Because the MD11 is an expensive VARIABLE unit cost airplane. This even more so than the A330-200. Then we have the famous equation rasm > casm = profit. Lowest RASM routes should have lowest CASM airplane in order to maximize profit. The larger the CASM, the higher the risk to the carrier. The MD11 clearly is a high CASM airplane. It has 3 engines, and a massive fuel flow per block hour.

Capital costs dont differ whether the airplane is flying to Montreal, San Francisco or Tucson.

"Sorry but why is a small number of J seats counter productive for profit optimization? Last time I checked it was still very unprofitable to fly empty seats aroun"

-For the last decade, KL has been flying a 30J version of the MD11 before the reconfig. This MD11 also flew YVR, SFO, and MIA.
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting Matt (Reply 39):
Yes and no. Let me explain. Let's just say that the AMS-YUL flight on Monday was operated by the MD11, as per the schedule. If the Tuesday flight that comes in is a 777, then I can see that a crew could have been deadheaded from NYC (let's say on Monday) to operate the Tuesday flight back from YUL to AMS on the 777. However, deadheading the MD11 crew (from the Monday flight) to NYC doesn't solve the problem as they are not qualified to fly the 777 from NYC to AMS. Do you see what I mean? It's not a question of crew availability, but of type rating.

Good point, but when on Wednesday, the flight is again operated on a M11 you will need a crew to fly it back to AMS. The 777 crew from the day before can't do that so you call in the crew from Monday. They were in the first place supposed to leave on Tuesday, but now got another days layover. The 777 from Tuesdays flight on the other hand will head to NYC to fill the void left by the crew that ferried in to fly YUL-AMS.
Not sure about how long they stay out for so you might have to add a day or two, but you get the idea.

/Robert
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 40):
Capital costs dont differ whether the airplane is flying to Montreal, San Francisco or Tucson.

True, but since capital is scarce, and since new capital (i.e. new aircraft) is generally the most reliable, you want to use them in your highest yield markets to protect and grow that yield. That's why AC is using their new 773 on the relatively high yield YYZ-LHR route, and not the lower yield YUL-CDG or YVR-HNL.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
PHKLM
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:29 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 40):
The larger the CASM, the higher the risk to the carrier. The MD11 clearly is a high CASM airplane. It has 3 engines, and a massive fuel flow per block hour.

Yes, this is all very well, but I still don't see your point. The A330-200 has lower variable costs, therefore it needs less pax onboard before the flight becomes profitable. Say it costs 100k € to deploy the 332 on AMS-YUL, and fares sell for 1k € each you need 100 pax to get into the black numbers. If the M11 costs 150k on AMS-YUL you will need 150 pax to get your costs covered. Now we face the problem that the AMS-YUL route (like my taxi example of driving youth home after going out) are not willing to pay 1k for their ticket. The demand just isn't there. So say you lower the fares to 500€, you now need 200 pax in your A330 or 300 pax in the M11. You wil easily see why it now makes sense to deploy a high density M11 on a low yielding route. You will deploy the 330 on a route that probably isn't very big in passenger numbers, as long as those passengers are willing to pay a higher price for their ticket.

The risk of not filling seats on a high yielding route is much larger, because so are associated costs. If you are unable to fill 35J seats on the M11, you are flying around empty WBC seats, that could have been deployed on healthy routes. By reducing the number of J seats, you are reducing this risk. You can more easily fill Y seats with deep-discounted fares. Deeply discounting J seats is stupid, because the costs for a J seat are much higher and you are diluting your product image of a premium product.

According to your logic, the M11 with a high CASM should be deployed to high RASM routes, say CPT or GRU. You could fit 50 WBC seats, significantly reducing the number of Y seats. You then run the risk I identified before, but this will mean you have to deploy your Magnificent Seven's to say CUR. So those 777's have to be filled with a lot of Y seats, in fact so many Y seats that you will never fill the plane.
Now you could argue that it is better to use a 787-8 on a route like CUR because it has less Y seats and lower CASM than the M11, but here capital costs are a relevant and real cost, because it will take many many flights before you have recuperated your initial capital outlay to get these new planes.

As you indicate yourself the M11 has been operated to other destinations in the past, and clearly it has not been the right plane for those routes. KLM is now fitting them with less J seats and sends them to destinations that are low yielding, so that the other metal can be deployed to destinations where it is needed and can be filled.
 
matt
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:36 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:39 am

Quoting GOT (Reply 41):
Good point, but when on Wednesday, the flight is again operated on a M11 you will need a crew to fly it back to AMS. The 777 crew from the day before can't do that so you call in the crew from Monday. They were in the first place supposed to leave on Tuesday, but now got another days layover. The 777 from Tuesdays flight on the other hand will head to NYC to fill the void left by the crew that ferried in to fly YUL-AMS.
Not sure about how long they stay out for so you might have to add a day or two, but you get the idea.

/Robert

Fair enough, but it doesn't solve the problem. If, like you said, the Monday MD11 crew (that flew AMS-YUL) stays in YUL, it will indeed be there to fly the Wednesday flight back to AMS provided it's an MD11 again. As for the 777 that came in on Tuesday, let's just say that it will fly back to AMS on Tuesday with a crew deadheaded from NYC. So far so good. The problem with this scenario is that this leaves NYC without a 777 crew to fly the NYC-AMS flight on Tuesday.

The only real way to solve this problem is to have crews deadhead to YUL the night before or have "spare" crews in NYC, which I doubt KL has. As complicated as crew scheduling is, it is quite challenging.
Next flights: YQM-YOW-YOW / YQM-YYZ-CPH-YYZ-YQM / YQM-YUL-LYS-BRU-YUL-YQM / YQM-PUJ-YQM
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 43):
Now we face the problem that the AMS-YUL route (like my taxi example of driving youth home after going out) are not willing to pay 1k for their ticket. The demand just isn't there. So say you lower the fares to 500€, you now need 200 pax in your A330 or 300 pax in the M11. You wil easily see why it now makes sense to deploy a high density M11 on a low yielding route. You will deploy the 330 on a route that probably isn't very big in passenger numbers, as long as those passengers are willing to pay a higher price for their ticket.

You simply can not substiante this. There is little evidence that YUL is a low-yield route. Yield determine the amount of revenue per pax per mile flown. Eastern seaboard route are known primarily for their higher OVERALL yields as stage length is lower, with average fares consistent within the zone. Furthermore, California routes suggest primarily low-yield as the stage length is 25-30% longer, with average fares that are likely 10% higher (based on average fare data from MIDT). See my example below.

minimum round-trip fares on KL to FCO via AMS

YVRFCO - KL - $1618 r/t CAD
LAXFCO - KL - $1069 r/t USD
SFOFCO - KL - $1110 r/t USD
YULFCO - KL - $1158 r/t CAD
YYZFCO - KL - $1158 r/t CAD
ORDFCO - KL - $998 r/t USD

There is a Canadian disadvantage however given that the point of sale Canada does not favor well when exchange to Euro currency.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 45):
There is little evidence that YUL is a low-yield route.

While YUL may not be the lowest of low in terms of yields, it is definitely a lower yield market than Toronto, New York or many other cities with much higher proportions of business traffic. YUL is, for example, BA's only destination in Canada that lacks First Class service. They continue to offer F class to YYZ, YYC and YVR.
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 46):
While YUL may not be the lowest of low in terms of yields, it is definitely a lower yield market than Toronto, New York or many other cities with much higher proportions of business traffic. YUL is, for example, BA's only destination in Canada that lacks First Class service. They continue to offer F class to YYZ, YYC and YVR.

Air France offers F in YUL, and not in YYZ. British offers F only on BA92/93 out of YYZ.... LH both offer F (seasonally to both)...

There is no doubt that these destinations have more business pax. But the argument that the MD11 is sent to YUL/YVR due to yield issues, is bogus. Especially when Canada-Atlantic has overall higher average fares than US based services.. as pointed in the example above.

As an anecdote, the next 5 KL672 deps out of YUL have less than 3 J seats available (per expertflyer.com)
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19002
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 47):
But the argument that the MD11 is sent to YUL/YVR due to yield issues, is bogus. Especially when Canada-Atlantic has overall higher average fares than US based services.. as pointed in the example above.

Whenever I've used KL YUL-AMS it always seems like a high proportion of passengers are connecting to CAI, BEY and other points in the Middle East and vicinity not known for their high yields in Y class. You have to look at more than just one market like Italy, and also have to look at fares/yields in both directions, and all the net fare deals and unpublished discounts etc.

YUL must be considered a lower priority by KL in terms of yield and profitability or they wouldn't be using the MD-11, especially with the recent reduction in MD-11 business class seating. If it was a strong high yield market they would also be more concerned than they seem to be re so many irregular operations and delays.
 
flyyul
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 11:25 am

RE: KL672 YUL-AMS

Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:23 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 48):

Whenever I've used KL YUL-AMS it always seems like a high proportion of passengers are connecting to CAI, BEY and other points in the Middle East and vicinity not known for their high yields in Y class. You have to look at more than just one market like Italy, and also have to look at fares/yields in both directions, and all the net fare deals and unpublished discounts etc.

YUL must be considered a lower priority by KL in terms of yield and profitability or they wouldn't be using the MD-11, especially with the recent reduction in MD-11 business class seating. If it was a strong high yield market they would also be more concerned than they seem to be re so many irregular operations and delays.

Firstly yields to the Middle East are generally very generous, especially to Lebanon. Remember that Air Canada deemed this to be a destination worth nonstop service from YUL.

Bad operational reliability of the MD11, and the fact that this fly this airplane to EWR, SFO (up until last year), and YVR does not imply lack of profitability. Going from a 30J to 24J is not a drastic reduction in J seats offered, and this probably satisfies the other destinations served (BON/AUA/SXM etc.).


A lot of convenient arguments are made in this thread. Im glad my perception of msg board opinion vs reality has changed offer the last years  Wink

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aero79cabin, Baidu [Spider], coolum, flyguy89, flyingclrs727, ikolkyo, jmc1975, johnberg, LAX772LR, loranfair, N14AZ, Nicoeddf, NWADC9, paulsaz, Qantas16, quic330, res77W, rheinwaldner, RL777, RWA380, SteinarN, stevend08, TheF15Ace, W3C [Validator] and 282 guests