Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
AirInterCRV wrote:LH act like a bully to SN and OS, but isn't even able to have their own house (Eurowings) in order
LAXintl wrote:AirInterCRV wrote:LH act like a bully to SN and OS, but isn't even able to have their own house (Eurowings) in order
Not really.
Its quite simple really - LH Group (like IAG) is a holding company. You want access to the bank coffers you need to earn it. Group will spend finite resources on units where it believes it can earn the best return.
TheLion wrote:When will this era of accountant-driven capitalism evolve into something more enlightened?
MIflyer12 wrote:TheLion wrote:When will this era of accountant-driven capitalism evolve into something more enlightened?
What would that be? Why should anyone (or any holding company) continue to invest in a business that doesn't cover its cost of capital?
TheLion wrote:Spohr comes across as yet another hapless corporate neoliberal in an era where that awful ideology is dying.
Starving OS of more modern, fuel-efficient aircraft at a time of rising fuel prices, while expecting them to improve returns (ie savage their loyal staff’s benefits, T&Cs et al some more) is like knocking a hole in your boat as it enters choppy waters.
When will this era of accountant-driven capitalism evolve into something more enlightened? Sure profitability is necessary, but as the sole end goal it becomes toxic, as we’re finding out with the decline of British Airways.
SQ789 wrote:Do all other bigger airlines already has modern Long Haul fleets nowdays? Or OS is the only one that still operates older Long Haul fleet?
Arion640 wrote:SQ789 wrote:Do all other bigger airlines already has modern Long Haul fleets nowdays? Or OS is the only one that still operates older Long Haul fleet?
The BA 747s hold some age.
kimimm19 wrote:More disgusting news from Germany... They would try to do the same to Swiss if it wasn't their best performing airline in the group year on year now...
It's simple, to gain returns you must invest... Especially with these far more economical planes that are now available.
kimimm19 wrote:More disgusting news from Germany... They would try to do the same to Swiss if it wasn't their best performing airline n the group year on year now...
It's simple, to gain returns you must invest... Especially with these far more economical planes that are now available.
sergegva wrote:kimimm19 wrote:More disgusting news from Germany... They would try to do the same to Swiss if it wasn't their best performing airline in the group year on year now...
It's simple, to gain returns you must invest... Especially with these far more economical planes that are now available.
Even Swiss is not spoiled. They get only old generations aircraft. Of course, B777W is still a good and efficient aircraft today. But what in ten years? LX will struggle if fuel prices are high and it had to compete against competitors with a fleet that is 100% next gen (787 & 350).
oldannyboy wrote:Not disagreeing with all that is being said above, including how idiotic some of Spohr's remarks are...
Still, I don't personally think that the somewhat older equipment is such a great big obstacle for OS... they provide such a gracious service, particularly in J, and frankly better than LH... VIE is a great airport, and their connections work very well. I'd personally take an old OS 767 via VIE any day over any LH via FRA...Not that LH is bad -by no means- but the service you get from OS is generally so much more personal.... I think this where the true strength of the company is: Austrian hospitality vs German functionality.
Servus!
sabenapilot wrote:kimimm19 wrote:More disgusting news from Germany... They would try to do the same to Swiss if it wasn't their best performing airline n the group year on year now...
It's simple, to gain returns you must invest... Especially with these far more economical planes that are now available.
Indeed.
An airline must be profitable, but it must be allowed to, meaning you give them both the tools to fly and the freedom to fly where they want.
The LH Group however has a clear preference towards Lufthansa proper, as also evidenced by it's name, BTW: why not have a more neutral name like IAG for the holding company???
Because if this 'Germany First' approach, it's very difficult for any other airline of the group -except LX at ZRH, which is a real jackpot- to run a sufficiently large global network to live off, as doing so is quickly seen as an unloyal attack on Lufthansa itself, also having such network.
The reality is Lufthansa is already suffering from external competition more than it likes, so it doesn't want to see more internal competition: all that thus remains for the others are niche markets where LH is either maxed out on bilaterals (e.g. india or japan), or where it is incapable of operating (west and central Africa), combined with leisure routes where Lufthansa's cost base is completely unsuitable for: try making a profitable network with such a cluster, however!
Especially now that Spohr got the brilliant idea to create a pan-European but very German company, Eurowings, to target those leisure routes, which obviously once more gets the unambiguous preference over any other non-German company in the group, and you're stuck in the situation where both OS and SN are in: with a much lower operating cost than that of it's internal competitors LH and LX, yet only allowed to operate on a too small skeleton network, officially because they arent making a profit big enough to grow further.
If the LH Group wants to maximize it's profits and let all of it's companies flourish, rather than just the German ones, it should take away a significant number of flights with a high connecting ratio of passengers away from its high cost airlines LH and LX and put them at SN and OS: a Scandinavian for instance really doesn't care whether he passes through FRA/ZRH , or BRU/VIE to go to say south America, so a whole lot of intercontinental flights could just as well be operated out of other hubs but FRA or ZRH too, and most likely at a lower cost even!!!
It's just German centrism which prevents this, evidenced by the appointment of Germans as CEO at each and every airline of the Group, as if nobody else in Europe is able to run an airline profitable.
devron wrote:Playing with statistics..
sabenapilot wrote:oldannyboy wrote:Not disagreeing with all that is being said above, including how idiotic some of Spohr's remarks are...
Still, I don't personally think that the somewhat older equipment is such a great big obstacle for OS... they provide such a gracious service, particularly in J, and frankly better than LH... VIE is a great airport, and their connections work very well. I'd personally take an old OS 767 via VIE any day over any LH via FRA...Not that LH is bad -by no means- but the service you get from OS is generally so much more personal.... I think this where the true strength of the company is: Austrian hospitality vs German functionality.
Servus!
I agree, and short to medium term, you're right, but on the long term, it's not sustainable.
The LH Group is way too Lufthansa, too German centered and it really shows: foreign non-Lufthansa non-Eurowings entities systematically need to earn any investments not once, not twice but trice even, whereas these 2 get full confidence up front, even if their cost base is -on both accounts- higher than that of the available alternatives and they aren't exactly great profit machines either!
As said: take away a bunch of (longhaul) planes and routes with a low O&D profile from EW/LH and give them to SN/OS: not only would they immediately improve their bottom line results by a lot, but thanks to their much lower cost base they'd also improve the Group's performance bibs lot!
FRA and LH are really nothing special and way below both SN/OS and BRU/VIE in terms of personalization, ease and comfort for both economy as well as business passengers, but hey: in the end you really start to believe you're a 5 star airline, even though everybody knows you just buy that rating from skytrax!
oldannyboy wrote:
Absolutely my friend, fully agree with you on all accounts! Personally I'd take SABENA's old A310s over LH A350s just for the mere personalized service and ease of transfer at Zaventem. I don't care much about bells and whistles on an aircraft, unless you get a friendly, personalized, caring, gracious service. LH is very efficient, but very standardized and often lack that extra bit of "personality" and friendly charm that you still find on SN, OS and LX. The smaller hubs in BRU, VIE and ZRH are wayyyy better/easier/friendlier than FRA.
LOWS wrote:Or maybe they're just looking for a reason to kill OS and replace it with Eurowings.
ei146 wrote:It is cheap to complain about the business decisions of the Lufthansa holding. But please don't forget there is a reason that Austrian, Brussels and Swiss are part of the Lufthansa group nowadays. As far as I can see all these airlines in the holding are currently in a much better economical state than as they were on their own or as their bankrupt predecessors Swissair and Sabena.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
FatCat wrote:I'm sorry but why keeping long hauls from Vienna when you can boost smooth connections to Munich and Frankfurt and save on planes, employees, slots and maintenance and boosting at the same time the occupancy on Lufthansa's planes with Austrian travellers
lightsaber wrote:LAXintl wrote:AirInterCRV wrote:LH act like a bully to SN and OS, but isn't even able to have their own house (Eurowings) in order
Not really.
Its quite simple really - LH Group (like IAG) is a holding company. You want access to the bank coffers you need to earn it. Group will spend finite resources on units where it believes it can earn the best return.
I agree. If a group isn't able to earn new aircraft, they will be downsized.
So how can OS improve?
Lightsaber
Begues wrote:Lufthansa obviously want to kill long haul competition in Vienna just like in Brussels, the problem is that Europe is not anything like US where an airline can just move a hub to wherever they like (including shuting it down altogether), it doesn't work like that. The moment LH kills Austrian long haul the Austrian government will simply back up new airline to take over the lost routes.
They will be pressured to do it by austrian buissinesses that will threaten with massive economic impact for the country without direct intercontinental airline routs. The government acting in the intrest of Austria rather than in the intrest of Lufthansa will do everything it can so save the long haul network.FatCat wrote:I'm sorry but why keeping long hauls from Vienna when you can boost smooth connections to Munich and Frankfurt and save on planes, employees, slots and maintenance and boosting at the same time the occupancy on Lufthansa's planes with Austrian travellers
Bacause Munich is in Germany, not in Austria, it serves the intrest of Germans, the people of Austria will never put up with having to go through a German airport just to be able to do business abroad. They will launch a new airline like there is no tomorrow.
FatCat wrote:Nationalism is dead and anachronistic in 21st century Europe
FatCat wrote:We're in Europe and business are transnational, it makes absolutely no sense what you've written above. Government cannot "act in the interest of Austria" by starting up an airline because there are many EU regulations that inhibit this way of financing business,
FatCat wrote:Nationalism is dead and anachronistic in 21st century Europe
aw70 wrote:As someone who has to fly long haul from Vienna occasionally, I usually make a point of flying LH, not OS. Take LAX, last year. On the way to LAX, I used the direct OS flight. An old clapped out 777, no internet, not particularly friendly staff. Back, a LH 346 to MUC, with a connection to Vienna. Technically less convenient, but the overall level of service on the long haul leg was way better on the Big Stick. My favourite way to get to California are the LH 380 anyway: old 777 need not apply.
OS has great technical staff and pilots, but the hard product is not entirely up to scratch anymore. In a certain way, the airline is still recovering from decades of abuse by politicians and their cronies, who ran the outfit into the ground over several decades. Remember, they had to pay LH money to take over OS, not the other way around. Otherwise, it would have been the end of OS entirely.
FatCat wrote:Begues wrote:Lufthansa obviously want to kill long haul competition in Vienna just like in Brussels, the problem is that Europe is not anything like US where an airline can just move a hub to wherever they like (including shuting it down altogether), it doesn't work like that. The moment LH kills Austrian long haul the Austrian government will simply back up new airline to take over the lost routes.
They will be pressured to do it by austrian buissinesses that will threaten with massive economic impact for the country without direct intercontinental airline routs. The government acting in the intrest of Austria rather than in the intrest of Lufthansa will do everything it can so save the long haul network.FatCat wrote:I'm sorry but why keeping long hauls from Vienna when you can boost smooth connections to Munich and Frankfurt and save on planes, employees, slots and maintenance and boosting at the same time the occupancy on Lufthansa's planes with Austrian travellers
Bacause Munich is in Germany, not in Austria, it serves the intrest of Germans, the people of Austria will never put up with having to go through a German airport just to be able to do business abroad. They will launch a new airline like there is no tomorrow.
No I don't think so
We're in Europe and business are transnational, it makes absolutely no sense what you've written above. Government cannot "act in the interest of Austria" by starting up an airline because there are many EU regulations that inhibit this way of financing business, as AZ demonstrates with big EU sanctions coming towards italian govt for "acting in the interest of Italy by financing a long time dead national carrier".
Austrian Airlines is part of LHG so again nonsense because every time you "Fly Austrian" you indeed fly LHG so a big part of money goes in the German's pockets.
Why "Austrian Businessmen" that will launch a new airline "like there is no tomorrow" didn't buy Austrian Airlines at the first place?
Nationalism is dead and anachronistic in 21st century Europe
FatCat wrote:We're in Europe and business are transnational, it makes absolutely no sense what you've written above. Government cannot "act in the interest of Austria" by starting up an airline because there are many EU regulations that inhibit this way of financing business, as AZ demonstrates with big EU sanctions coming towards italian govt for "acting in the interest of Italy by financing a long time dead national carrier".
Austrian Airlines is part of LHG so again nonsense because every time you "Fly Austrian" you indeed fly LHG so a big part of money goes in the German's pockets.
Why "Austrian Businessmen" that will launch a new airline "like there is no tomorrow" didn't buy Austrian Airlines at the first place?
Nationalism is dead and anachronistic in 21st century Europe
Waterbomber wrote:If you look at how the SN CEO was kicked out and replaced by a German, you get the drift.
Waterbomber wrote:Someone mentioned that the Austrian government cant back up a new Austrian carrier.
You are wrong, the Belgian government are hedging their bets and have invested funds into start-up Air Belgium. If LH pull out of the African routes from BRU, they will pull the trigger on Africa too.
Same with AZ. If the Italian government sees that LH doesn't maintain a mass that os of interest to the Italian economy, they'll just find a way to make sure the economy isn't affected by the doings of a foreign company. Americans like to call it a matter of national security.