Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 17
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:01 pm

SRQLOT wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:
LOT is currently leasing 2 737s from Go2Sky to cover the 737 Max grounding. The leases expire at the end of this week, as Go2Sky had already committed the aircraft for the summer 2019 season.

Based on the actions of other airlines, it seems that tge 737 Max will likely be grounded for much of April as a minimum. So what does LOT plan to do to cover the lack of usable aircraft in its fleet ? Easter is a busy time and I very much doubt LOT will want to just cancel fully booked flights full of passengers who paid plenty of money for their tickets

Are they planning to lease aircraft from somewhere else or do they perhaps have something else in mind ?


I was looking for flights in Europe and looks like Blue Air is coming back to help LOT. LOT should just buy the airline at this point lol. Also few weeks ago there was the rumor I read and posted here that LOT is planning on getting 8 more E195s. I wonder what the status is of that rumor.


Maybe E95s will slowly replace some E70s and E75s. LO could always shift them to other airports such as BUD where smaller capacity is needed.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11608
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:00 am

According to South Korea's embassy in Hungary, LOT to start BUD-ICN flights later this year

https://twitter.com/AeronewsRO/status/1 ... 91136?s=20
Forum Moderator
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:30 am

BUD-ICN should be interesting. I know Koreans travel to Europe to visit several countries at a time. If these flights happen, I wonder if it might impact KE's numbers at VIE. After all, there are probably a finite number of Korean tourists visiting Europe.
 
tomgle
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:20 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:52 pm

Hopefully it does better than the NA routes.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:34 pm

Is LO getting some subsidies for these flights from BUD?
 
emuwarveteran
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:12 pm

BUD - ICN will probably do well. Korean tourists and business
CL CRJ9, W6 A320
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Blerg wrote:
Is LO getting some subsidies for these flights from BUD?


This no one knows for sure, Poland and Hungary are quite close allies of late so that could be the case, but so far there is no proof of that.

Another reason is the lack of space for widebody operations at WAW, the non-schengen part of the terminal is overcrowded and there are not enough code D capable gates to handle the 787s joining the fleet, add to that the grounded 787s once they have their engines fixed. The terminal will be expended in the next two years to create a whole new wing for non-schengen widebody flights but until then LOT is moving some aircraft to BUD for long-haul operations as there clearly is a gap in the market to be filled since the demise of Malev.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:07 pm

Milka wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Is LO getting some subsidies for these flights from BUD?


This no one knows for sure, Poland and Hungary are quite close allies of late so that could be the case, but so far there is no proof of that.

Another reason is the lack of space for widebody operations at WAW, the non-schengen part of the terminal is overcrowded and there are not enough code D capable gates to handle the 787s joining the fleet, add to that the grounded 787s once they have their engines fixed. The terminal will be expended in the next two years to create a whole new wing for non-schengen widebody flights but until then LOT is moving some aircraft to BUD for long-haul operations as there clearly is a gap in the market to be filled since the demise of Malev.

Not really. The very limited long-haul operations that Malév ever had were grossly loss-making and consisted at its peak of PEK, BKK, NYC, YYZ and CLE(maybe not even all of those all at once). Remember that even during communist times, when IF, LO, OK, RO, LZ (and SU, of course) had long-haul operations (mostly prestige and political flights, but still), MA never flew further than the likes of CAI, TLV, DAM, BEY...
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 1179
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:03 am

In Europe, I can see very little short haul feed that will end up on a LOT flight from BUD to ICN; Lufthansa will presumably be trying to grab these passengers via Munich. Perhaps there is a bit from Asiana, but I don't imagine there will be a huge amount. Korean already offers a Seoul-Vienna flight which used to (still does ?) go via Zurich as a tag-on so as to fill up with pax. Budapest does not have the same level of money as Vienna or Zurich

All of this makes me think LOT will end up doing substantially point-to-point long haul on a route which is not an obvious business route -more like something for seasonal tourism.

Perhaps this can make money over a 12 month cycle but LOT will need a hefty marketing budget and a very dense seating plan in the cabin if this route is to be profitable
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:06 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
In Europe, I can see very little short haul feed that will end up on a LOT flight from BUD to ICN; Lufthansa will presumably be trying to grab these passengers via Munich. Perhaps there is a bit from Asiana, but I don't imagine there will be a huge amount. Korean already offers a Seoul-Vienna flight which used to (still does ?) go via Zurich as a tag-on so as to fill up with pax. Budapest does not have the same level of money as Vienna or Zurich

All of this makes me think LOT will end up doing substantially point-to-point long haul on a route which is not an obvious business route -more like something for seasonal tourism.

Perhaps this can make money over a 12 month cycle but LOT will need a hefty marketing budget and a very dense seating plan in the cabin if this route is to be profitable

...and I think you err on the optimistic side...
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:41 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
Not really. The very limited long-haul operations that Malév ever had were grossly loss-making and consisted at its peak of PEK, BKK, NYC, YYZ and CLE(maybe not even all of those all at once). Remember that even during communist times, when IF, LO, OK, RO, LZ (and SU, of course) had long-haul operations (mostly prestige and political flights, but still), MA never flew further than the likes of CAI, TLV, DAM, BEY...


Wow you really are mentally stuck in some kind of backwards soviet area...Times have changed if you haven't noticed, Hungarians have become more wealthy and there is demand for long-haul from Budapest. If it wasn't for the disgraceful way Boeing is handling their 787's and 737 Max's, LOT would be performing much better from its home base and its Budapest base. Hopefully Boeing can get its act together so LOT does not have to keep the entire 737 Max fleet grounded and half of its 787-8s. Please stop commenting on this thread as you clearly have no clue of the realities of the 21st century and no one on here cares for your biased and negative input.
 
emuwarveteran
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:01 am

Milka wrote:
Wow you really are mentally stuck in some kind of backwards soviet area...Times have changed if you haven't noticed, Hungarians have become more wealthy and there is demand for long-haul from Budapest.


[sarcasm]Seriously? You didn't know? LHR, CDG, AMS and FRA are literally the only destinations you can open a route to in Europe and turn a profit. Everything else is something something low yields something something[/sarcasm]
CL CRJ9, W6 A320
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:19 am

emuwarveteran wrote:
Milka wrote:
Wow you really are mentally stuck in some kind of backwards soviet area...Times have changed if you haven't noticed, Hungarians have become more wealthy and there is demand for long-haul from Budapest.


[sarcasm]Seriously? You didn't know? LHR, CDG, AMS and FRA are literally the only destinations you can open a route to in Europe and turn a profit. Everything else is something something low yields something something[/sarcasm]


In all seriousness, corporate/high yield demand for l/h is quite limited in the CEE region. The local economies are mostly regionally(EU) focused. Most of the long haul business traffic is collected and served by Western European hubs. This is really evident in the super-low C-class fares offered by LO on connections through WAW

Most long haul flights into the region are seasonal and/or non-daily, which suggests that traffic is mostly leisure oriented.

The only exception is LO, which seems hell bent on building a large hub out of Warsaw, whether they succeed or not, time will tell. The odds are definitely against them.

Their current operations in BUD can be characterized as reckless, at best.
 
emuwarveteran
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:27 am

winter wrote:
In all seriousness, corporate/high yield demand for l/h is quite limited in the CEE region. The local economies are mostly regionally(EU) focused. Most of the long haul business traffic is collected and served by Western European hubs. This is really evident in the super-low C-class fares offered by LO on connections through WAW

Most long haul flights into the region are seasonal and/or non-daily, which suggests that traffic is mostly leisure oriented.

The only exception is LO, which seems hell bent on building a large hub out of Warsaw, whether they succeed or not, time will tell. The odds are definitely against them.


The only reason why long-haul flights into the region are seasonal and/or non-daily is because airlines are scared of trying out new destinations. For example look at how well AA is doing on its PHL - PRG and BUD routes which I wouldn't be surprised if they were changed to year round in 2020 or so.

The Central Eastern Europe region is getting richer and richer by the day. Investment keeps flowing into countries like Poland and Czechia. By 2030 so when the new airport opens Poland will be as (if not more) relevant a country as Germany. Hopefully this forum will be still up by then. If that doesn't happen I am going to send you a video of myself eating a pair of my own socks.
CL CRJ9, W6 A320
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:11 am

emuwarveteran wrote:
The only reason why long-haul flights into the region are seasonal and/or non-daily is because airlines are scared of trying out new destinations. For example look at how well AA is doing on its PHL - PRG and BUD routes which I wouldn't be surprised if they were changed to year round in 2020 or so.
I don’t think carriers are afraid of opening new routes, there have been a lot of new long haul services started recently. What carriers are actually afraid of is loss-making routes. AA is doing well because it’s serving the market in the way its needs are best served, as a summer leisure market. It’s not pretending that BUD or PRG are big business markets. AA, UA, DL, AC, all serve the region seasonally. The reason AA is doing better than LO in BUD is also because it has a massive hub in PHL that allows it funnel leisure traffic from all over the US, whereas LO is basically pulling a “Norwegian” and serving P2P traffic, but without the low costs or the densily configured 787s .

emuwarveteran wrote:
The Central Eastern Europe region is getting richer and richer by the day. Investment keeps flowing into countries like Poland and Czechia. By 2030 so when the new airport opens Poland will be as (if not more) relevant a country as Germany. Hopefully this forum will be still up by then. If that doesn't happen I am going to send you a video of myself eating a pair of my own socks.
No offense, but are you predicting Germany descends into an economic black hole...? these are some really bold predictions. Granted, CEE has experienced impressive economic development over the last 30 years, but I find it highly, highly unlikely PL or CZ will be a top 10 global economic power in our lifetimes or ever. Both, countries have low or negative population growth and economies mostly driven by foreign and not domestic industry or finance.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:15 am

I remember when JU launched BEG-JFK everyone was making fun of them and giving them a few months before it's terminated. Three years later they are actually increasing it this summer to 6 weekly while they went from two profitable months to now 6. Not bad if you ask me. All new routes need time to mature. Same with LO and BUD. Maybe they market isn't as develop as the one in Vienna but it's getting there.
I think there is room for LO to keep on expanding its European network out of BUD. Not everyone wants to fly on an LCC and LO has the perfect aircraft for such a market- E90/95.
 
ExpatVet
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:35 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:48 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
Milka wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Is LO getting some subsidies for these flights from BUD?


This no one knows for sure, Poland and Hungary are quite close allies of late so that could be the case, but so far there is no proof of that.

Another reason is the lack of space for widebody operations at WAW, the non-schengen part of the terminal is overcrowded and there are not enough code D capable gates to handle the 787s joining the fleet, add to that the grounded 787s once they have their engines fixed. The terminal will be expended in the next two years to create a whole new wing for non-schengen widebody flights but until then LOT is moving some aircraft to BUD for long-haul operations as there clearly is a gap in the market to be filled since the demise of Malev.

Not really. The very limited long-haul operations that Malév ever had were grossly loss-making and consisted at its peak of PEK, BKK, NYC, YYZ and CLE(maybe not even all of those all at once). Remember that even during communist times, when IF, LO, OK, RO, LZ (and SU, of course) had long-haul operations (mostly prestige and political flights, but still), MA never flew further than the likes of CAI, TLV, DAM, BEY...



Isn't that where a lot of Hungarians emigrated to or worked in? (Thinking Toronto, Vancouver, tel aviv, Cleveland)
L101, 733/4/5/8/9, 741/2/3 (never managed 744!), MD 80/2/3/8/90, MD11, DHC8/3/Q4, E170, E195, 757, 77W, 763/4, Travel Air 2000. A300/310, A319/320/321, A333, ATR-72, probably a few others I forget. Passenger, not pilot, alas! BUD based.
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:56 am

Blerg wrote:
I remember when JU launched BEG-JFK everyone was making fun of them and giving them a few months before it's terminated. Three years later they are actually increasing it this summer to 6 weekly while they went from two profitable months to now 6. Not bad if you ask me. All new routes need time to mature. Same with LO and BUD. Maybe they market isn't as develop as the one in Vienna but it's getting there.
I think there is room for LO to keep on expanding its European network out of BUD. Not everyone wants to fly on an LCC and LO has the perfect aircraft for such a market- E90/95.


Are you really suggesting that an airline as small as LO operate not one, but two hubs in the regions?
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:10 am

winter wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I remember when JU launched BEG-JFK everyone was making fun of them and giving them a few months before it's terminated. Three years later they are actually increasing it this summer to 6 weekly while they went from two profitable months to now 6. Not bad if you ask me. All new routes need time to mature. Same with LO and BUD. Maybe they market isn't as develop as the one in Vienna but it's getting there.
I think there is room for LO to keep on expanding its European network out of BUD. Not everyone wants to fly on an LCC and LO has the perfect aircraft for such a market- E90/95.


Are you really suggesting that an airline as small as LO operate not one, but two hubs in the regions?


If there is no more capacity at WAW what are they supposed to do? Park the planes in a field until the expansion is complete? Don't forget that LO has managed to turn a profit meaning they can cover these costs by themselves... especially if they are getting some subsidies from the Hungarian side.
 
SRQLOT
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:37 am

Yet again the same things are being said and thrown around as in the other thread about LOTs long haul plans by the same people.

Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.
LO LH CL BA AZ WN UA DL AA B6 NK G4 F9
717 733/7/8/9/M8 744 752/3 763 772 788 319/20/21 332/3 M90 RJ85 CR9 Q400 E7/95 (PA28,152)
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:12 pm

winter wrote:
emuwarveteran wrote:
Milka wrote:
Wow you really are mentally stuck in some kind of backwards soviet area...Times have changed if you haven't noticed, Hungarians have become more wealthy and there is demand for long-haul from Budapest.


[sarcasm]Seriously? You didn't know? LHR, CDG, AMS and FRA are literally the only destinations you can open a route to in Europe and turn a profit. Everything else is something something low yields something something[/sarcasm]


In all seriousness, corporate/high yield demand for l/h is quite limited in the CEE region. The local economies are mostly regionally(EU) focused. Most of the long haul business traffic is collected and served by Western European hubs. This is really evident in the super-low C-class fares offered by LO on connections through WAW

Most long haul flights into the region are seasonal and/or non-daily, which suggests that traffic is mostly leisure oriented.

The only exception is LO, which seems hell bent on building a large hub out of Warsaw, whether they succeed or not, time will tell. The odds are definitely against them.

Their current operations in BUD can be characterized as reckless, at best.

Thank you. Now, be prepared to be flamed here for telling the truth.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:18 pm

ExpatVet wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
Milka wrote:

This no one knows for sure, Poland and Hungary are quite close allies of late so that could be the case, but so far there is no proof of that.

Another reason is the lack of space for widebody operations at WAW, the non-schengen part of the terminal is overcrowded and there are not enough code D capable gates to handle the 787s joining the fleet, add to that the grounded 787s once they have their engines fixed. The terminal will be expended in the next two years to create a whole new wing for non-schengen widebody flights but until then LOT is moving some aircraft to BUD for long-haul operations as there clearly is a gap in the market to be filled since the demise of Malev.

Not really. The very limited long-haul operations that Malév ever had were grossly loss-making and consisted at its peak of PEK, BKK, NYC, YYZ and CLE(maybe not even all of those all at once). Remember that even during communist times, when IF, LO, OK, RO, LZ (and SU, of course) had long-haul operations (mostly prestige and political flights, but still), MA never flew further than the likes of CAI, TLV, DAM, BEY...



Isn't that where a lot of Hungarians emigrated to or worked in? (Thinking Toronto, Vancouver, tel aviv, Cleveland)

Except for BKK and PEK, yes, you are correct.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:23 pm

winter wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I remember when JU launched BEG-JFK everyone was making fun of them and giving them a few months before it's terminated. Three years later they are actually increasing it this summer to 6 weekly while they went from two profitable months to now 6. Not bad if you ask me. All new routes need time to mature. Same with LO and BUD. Maybe they market isn't as develop as the one in Vienna but it's getting there.
I think there is room for LO to keep on expanding its European network out of BUD. Not everyone wants to fly on an LCC and LO has the perfect aircraft for such a market- E90/95.


Are you really suggesting that an airline as small as LO operate not one, but two hubs in the regions?

But you have to remember that one of them is in a market that can only grow for ever, overtake Germany, and where all foreign airlines don't fly just because they are afraid (not clear of what, exactly....low yields, maybe?)... :roll:
Last edited by MalevTU134 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:28 pm

SRQLOT wrote:
Yet again the same things are being said and thrown around as in the other thread about LOTs long haul plans by the same people.

Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.

I totally agree that they need to grow. And I really hope their long haul flights will keep doing well, contrary to what people here have accused me of. But...I think it will be difficult in the long run. And flights such as BUD-ICN, with no feed at either end (please don't reply that they can feed to Bucharest...) seem to be acts of utter desperation.
 
SRQLOT
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:10 pm

MalevTU134 wrote:
SRQLOT wrote:
Yet again the same things are being said and thrown around as in the other thread about LOTs long haul plans by the same people.

Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.

I totally agree that they need to grow. And I really hope their long haul flights will keep doing well, contrary to what people here have accused me of. But...I think it will be difficult in the long run. And flights such as BUD-ICN, with no feed at either end (please don't reply that they can feed to Bucharest...) seem to be acts of utter desperation.


As it is right now they need all the 787s they can get in WAW right now. Obviously BUD is still a rumor, LOT has a lot of housekeeping to do in Warsaw. Miami is coming up, New Delhi and Sri Lanka. I can’t imagine that LOT would be crazy to add one more lh route this year.

As for South Korea, they love classical music and old charm cities. How is tourism to Europe from South Korea that could be pushed to Budapest. I know last year a show in South Korea that had 2 ladies do a layover in Poland and then went to Budapest. It seemed like a popular show.
LO LH CL BA AZ WN UA DL AA B6 NK G4 F9
717 733/7/8/9/M8 744 752/3 763 772 788 319/20/21 332/3 M90 RJ85 CR9 Q400 E7/95 (PA28,152)
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:16 pm

Blerg wrote:
If there is no more capacity at WAW what are they supposed to do? Park the planes in a field until the expansion is complete? Don't forget that LO has managed to turn a profit meaning they can cover these costs by themselves... especially if they are getting some subsidies from the Hungarian side.
WAW’s capacity isn’t as maxed out as some make it out to be.

There are three capacity constraints at WAW: environmental, runway and terminal capacity limits.

Environmental capacity is set at 600 movements a day, this arbitrary limit is based on aircraft noise pollution levels from the early 2000s. Capacity will be increase after recalculation based on newer, quieter aircraft noise emissions.

Runway capacity is hourly, and only maxed out in the early morning(7-8am) and late afternoon(4-5pm). During the rest of the day runway capacity isn’t an issue.

Terminal capacity or more specifically, the availability of wide body gates, is only a problem during the early afternoon (1-4pm) during LO’s main l/h wave.

Firstly, the airport is undertaking action to increase each of these. Secondly, and specifically to BUD-JFK/ORD and it’s alleged justification based on WAW’s lack of capacity, LO already operates daily flights to both cities during its main departure l/h wave, so logically additional flights would occur earlier in the day(during an earlier departure wave) when widebody gates aren’t a problem.

Honestly, the “WAW and it’s purported lack of capacity” argument is used mainly as justification for construction of the new airport. That’s not surprising, it’s a vanity project for the current government, so politics and emotions trump reasoning in any political project. WAW is far from actually being maxed. There’s land around the airport to expand, the airfield still needs efficiency improvements, terminals can be expanded, and flights and aircraft capacity can be increased. WAW is very far from being maxed out like a LHR, JFK, LAX, Ataturk or a Kai Tak.

HU is an EU member, there’s a public tender process in place for allocating subsidies and operating PSO’s. There hasn’t been any tender issued for operating a hub or long haul routes from BUD. The only financial support LO can count on in BUD is airport fee reductions, which are available to any carrier starting new routes.

SRQLOT wrote:
Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.


Not too long ago LO had to be bailed out by the PL government, it’s turned a profit less than a handful of times, and it’s most recent good fortunes have been mostly a product of cheaper fuel and good macroeconomic conditions. LO hasn’t demonstrated its operations are sustainable, we’ll find that out after the next downturn.

I find it interesting that if Alaska Airlines announced tomorrow that’s it’s going to base 20 787s in PDX, most would say AS lost their mind, but when the same is announced by some small European national carrier its accepted as reasonable. Mind you, Portland is both bigger population wise and economically than Warsaw and AS is a much, much bigger airline than LO.

At best, Warsaw could be a medium sized hub, but as we’ve seen in the US, medium sized hubs can’t compete with bigger hub economics and as consolidation progresses in Europe so to will similar pressure on smaller hubs.
 
SRQLOT
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:46 pm

winter wrote:
Blerg wrote:
If there is no more capacity at WAW what are they supposed to do? Park the planes in a field until the expansion is complete? Don't forget that LO has managed to turn a profit meaning they can cover these costs by themselves... especially if they are getting some subsidies from the Hungarian side.
WAW’s capacity isn’t as maxed out as some make it out to be.

There are three capacity constraints at WAW: environmental, runway and terminal capacity limits.

Environmental capacity is set at 600 movements a day, this arbitrary limit is based on aircraft noise pollution levels from the early 2000s. Capacity will be increase after recalculation based on newer, quieter aircraft noise emissions.

Runway capacity is hourly, and only maxed out in the early morning(7-8am) and late afternoon(4-5pm). During the rest of the day runway capacity isn’t an issue.

Terminal capacity or more specifically, the availability of wide body gates, is only a problem during the early afternoon (1-4pm) during LO’s main l/h wave.

Firstly, the airport is undertaking action to increase each of these. Secondly, and specifically to BUD-JFK/ORD and it’s alleged justification based on WAW’s lack of capacity, LO already operates daily flights to both cities during its main departure l/h wave, so logically additional flights would occur earlier in the day(during an earlier departure wave) when widebody gates aren’t a problem.

Honestly, the “WAW and it’s purported lack of capacity” argument is used mainly as justification for construction of the new airport. That’s not surprising, it’s a vanity project for the current government, so politics and emotions trump reasoning in any political project. WAW is far from actually being maxed. There’s land around the airport to expand, the airfield still needs efficiency improvements, terminals can be expanded, and flights and aircraft capacity can be increased. WAW is very far from being maxed out like a LHR, JFK, LAX, Ataturk or a Kai Tak.

HU is an EU member, there’s a public tender process in place for allocating subsidies and operating PSO’s. There hasn’t been any tender issued for operating a hub or long haul routes from BUD. The only financial support LO can count on in BUD is airport fee reductions, which are available to any carrier starting new routes.

SRQLOT wrote:
Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.


Not too long ago LO had to be bailed out by the PL government, it’s turned a profit less than a handful of times, and it’s most recent good fortunes have been mostly a product of cheaper fuel and good macroeconomic conditions. LO hasn’t demonstrated its operations are sustainable, we’ll find that out after the next downturn.

I find it interesting that if Alaska Airlines announced tomorrow that’s it’s going to base 20 787s in PDX, most would say AS lost their mind, but when the same is announced by some small European national carrier its accepted as reasonable. Mind you, Portland is both bigger population wise and economically than Warsaw and AS is a much, much bigger airline than LO.

At best, Warsaw could be a medium sized hub, but as we’ve seen in the US, medium sized hubs can’t compete with bigger hub economics and as consolidation progresses in Europe so to will similar pressure on smaller hubs.



Of course WAW can have more flights not in peek hours, but the market dictates how people want to travel too. LOT won’t be able to compete if it has some odd arrival time to ORD or JFK and there is the issue of feed from connections. Even AA and United went away from rolling banks at airports where they tried it because it didn’t work.

There is no space around WAW to expend that’s why a parallel runway can’t be built. WAW admitted that because of CPK talk they held off on expansion and it was a mistake to do so. Now the terminal expansion wont be completed till end of 2022. And the change to E gates around 2021. The extra 4 Bus gates will be done by next year. At the current growth rate there will be issues from lack of capacity even with more flights at non peek hours.

Many people said that last year 2018 was going to be a nail in the coffin for LOT because of higher fuel prices and guess what LOT even with the strike, Dreamliner issues still made a profit. Fuel prices are higher and I guess LOT is dealing with it. As for being bailed out, again if not airplane issues with delays they wouldn’t have fallen as bad. Look at how many other failing airlines are allowed to keep flying, and airlines like WOW are allowed to loose money for years and ruin well run airlines that unfortunately do have higher costs associated with them.
LO LH CL BA AZ WN UA DL AA B6 NK G4 F9
717 733/7/8/9/M8 744 752/3 763 772 788 319/20/21 332/3 M90 RJ85 CR9 Q400 E7/95 (PA28,152)
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:26 pm

Milka wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
Not really. The very limited long-haul operations that Malév ever had were grossly loss-making and consisted at its peak of PEK, BKK, NYC, YYZ and CLE(maybe not even all of those all at once). Remember that even during communist times, when IF, LO, OK, RO, LZ (and SU, of course) had long-haul operations (mostly prestige and political flights, but still), MA never flew further than the likes of CAI, TLV, DAM, BEY...


Wow you really are mentally stuck in some kind of backwards soviet area...Times have changed if you haven't noticed, Hungarians have become more wealthy and there is demand for long-haul from Budapest. If it wasn't for the disgraceful way Boeing is handling their 787's and 737 Max's, LOT would be performing much better from its home base and its Budapest base. Hopefully Boeing can get its act together so LOT does not have to keep the entire 737 Max fleet grounded and half of its 787-8s. Please stop commenting on this thread as you clearly have no clue of the realities of the 21st century and no one on here cares for your biased and negative input.

I shall disappoint you by keeping on my commenting here. Last time I checked this was a free-for-all forum.

Hungary is a relatively small (9.7 million inhabitants and shrinking) country, with a relatively low average GDP per capita (roughly USD14,000, to compare with the USD 45,000-85,000 of Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, UK, and the Scandinavian countries). Of course people are better off today than during the communist era. And they are free to travel, which there weren't back then. But in order to successfully sustain long haul flights, there must be enough people that can travel and pay the premium for those flights (there is no lack of EU3, ME3 and TK connetions from BUD to the world). And these people must be there constantly, day after day, week after week, low season as well as high season. And that consistency is what in a country such as Hungary (or Slovakia, Czechia and even Poland) is really difficult for an airline to find. And this is not a matter of opinion (I don't say this - unlike you - with an intention to shut somebody up), but of numbers. Commercial airlines don't take routing decisions based on whims or "perceptions" of a country or a market, but on solid numbers. Yours is like saying Hungary should qualify to the Olympics in high jump because they jump "quite high, in fact much higher than before", whereas an airline is like the IOC, they have quantifiable limits. "Don't jump 2.20? Forget the Olympics." In analogy with this, it is usually the more affluent countries (in Europe, roughly the ones that I stated above) that qualify for the bulk of the long haul routes. There are exceptions, as when historical or cultural ties lead to a higher level of business traffic to certain countries or regions (see Spain and Portugal to Latin America and Brazil/Africa, respectively), but CEE, unfortunately, doesn't tick any of these boxes, at least not for now. Some may be borderline (WAW to certain North American cities) and need developing.

In summary: Is there demand for long haul from BUD? Sure there is!! Is there enough demand, and at good yields, for long haul out of BUD? NO, there isn't, at least not for now.

Oh, and blaming it on Boeing is really a lame excuse for anything...
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:10 pm

SRQLOT wrote:
winter wrote:
Blerg wrote:
If there is no more capacity at WAW what are they supposed to do? Park the planes in a field until the expansion is complete? Don't forget that LO has managed to turn a profit meaning they can cover these costs by themselves... especially if they are getting some subsidies from the Hungarian side.
WAW’s capacity isn’t as maxed out as some make it out to be.

There are three capacity constraints at WAW: environmental, runway and terminal capacity limits.

Environmental capacity is set at 600 movements a day, this arbitrary limit is based on aircraft noise pollution levels from the early 2000s. Capacity will be increase after recalculation based on newer, quieter aircraft noise emissions.

Runway capacity is hourly, and only maxed out in the early morning(7-8am) and late afternoon(4-5pm). During the rest of the day runway capacity isn’t an issue.

Terminal capacity or more specifically, the availability of wide body gates, is only a problem during the early afternoon (1-4pm) during LO’s main l/h wave.

Firstly, the airport is undertaking action to increase each of these. Secondly, and specifically to BUD-JFK/ORD and it’s alleged justification based on WAW’s lack of capacity, LO already operates daily flights to both cities during its main departure l/h wave, so logically additional flights would occur earlier in the day(during an earlier departure wave) when widebody gates aren’t a problem.

Honestly, the “WAW and it’s purported lack of capacity” argument is used mainly as justification for construction of the new airport. That’s not surprising, it’s a vanity project for the current government, so politics and emotions trump reasoning in any political project. WAW is far from actually being maxed. There’s land around the airport to expand, the airfield still needs efficiency improvements, terminals can be expanded, and flights and aircraft capacity can be increased. WAW is very far from being maxed out like a LHR, JFK, LAX, Ataturk or a Kai Tak.

HU is an EU member, there’s a public tender process in place for allocating subsidies and operating PSO’s. There hasn’t been any tender issued for operating a hub or long haul routes from BUD. The only financial support LO can count on in BUD is airport fee reductions, which are available to any carrier starting new routes.

SRQLOT wrote:
Everyone I think agrees that LOT needs to grow to survive. Until WAW gets its updates and visas are removed I think it’s smart for LOT to look for new markets and grow its brand name especially at a touristy destination like Budapest that doesn’t have much long haul service especially if Budapest pays for it. First though LOT needs to clean up its home first.


Not too long ago LO had to be bailed out by the PL government, it’s turned a profit less than a handful of times, and it’s most recent good fortunes have been mostly a product of cheaper fuel and good macroeconomic conditions. LO hasn’t demonstrated its operations are sustainable, we’ll find that out after the next downturn.

I find it interesting that if Alaska Airlines announced tomorrow that’s it’s going to base 20 787s in PDX, most would say AS lost their mind, but when the same is announced by some small European national carrier its accepted as reasonable. Mind you, Portland is both bigger population wise and economically than Warsaw and AS is a much, much bigger airline than LO.

At best, Warsaw could be a medium sized hub, but as we’ve seen in the US, medium sized hubs can’t compete with bigger hub economics and as consolidation progresses in Europe so to will similar pressure on smaller hubs.



Of course WAW can have more flights not in peek hours, but the market dictates how people want to travel too. LOT won’t be able to compete if it has some odd arrival time to ORD or JFK and there is the issue of feed from connections. Even AA and United went away from rolling banks at airports where they tried it because it didn’t work.

There is no space around WAW to expend that’s why a parallel runway can’t be built. WAW admitted that because of CPK talk they held off on expansion and it was a mistake to do so. Now the terminal expansion wont be completed till end of 2022. And the change to E gates around 2021. The extra 4 Bus gates will be done by next year. At the current growth rate there will be issues from lack of capacity even with more flights at non peek hours.

Many people said that last year 2018 was going to be a nail in the coffin for LOT because of higher fuel prices and guess what LOT even with the strike, Dreamliner issues still made a profit. Fuel prices are higher and I guess LOT is dealing with it. As for being bailed out, again if not airplane issues with delays they wouldn’t have fallen as bad. Look at how many other failing airlines are allowed to keep flying, and airlines like WOW are allowed to loose money for years and ruin well run airlines that unfortunately do have higher costs associated with them.

Are you suggesting LO operate back to back flights to JFK and ORD that are within a few minutes of each other (during the same wave)?

LO already operates a smaller second bank of l/h departures at 11am, no problem boosting those. LO operates 6 banks at WAW, no need to cram every thing into one, but sure if you’re looking to justify a new airport you can focus on one maxed out bank. LO isn’t the first nor the last airline to operate a hub in a constrained airport, but the narrative sure seems like that sometimes. State enterprises are great at finding excuses for their frequent underperformance.

The majority of LO’s flights are on small regional aircraft sub-100pax, if they want to increase capacity up gauge the aircraft. Easy.

Sorry, I still don’t see a lack of capacity argument justifying a second hub in BUD.

It’s been demonstrated a parallel runway CAN be built at WAW, it requires burying an expressway in a short tunnel. The southern flank of the airport is mostly undeveloped. Surely that’s more cost effective than a brand new distant airport. The government has decided not to pursue, or even explore, this option because the prestige of building a new mega airport trumps fiscal responsibility.

In the last 30 years, LO has turned a profit exactly 5 times. Hardly, a track record of success, and its insolvency was the result of a number of factors and not solely the delay in 787 deliveries.

Why did you single out WOW? They played the game fair and square, private capital invested in a business, that recklessly overexpanded and appropriately collapsed when the money ran out. It’s state enterprises like LO, AZ or MH that are allowed to linger on indefinitely despite dismal finances, potentially taking up space from more capable players.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:22 pm

Lack of future expansion possibilities is certainly a major problem for WAW in the long term. There might be land left to add additional terminal space and parking positions. There is not however, any space to add a 3rd runway in order to have two independent operational runways. The two intersecting runways will reach their maximum capacity eventually and add to that the night curfew and there is just no way around the capacity constraints other than a new airport eventually. What the current government is proposing might be too early and too much but it is eventually going to happen that I am sure. The issue is how long should one keep investing into an airport that you know wont ever get a parallel runway.

When it comes to seasonality, this remains the major issue for the airline and LOT is aware of it. They are trying to tackle seasonality by launching ever more seasonal routes for the winter. So far these include: Bangkok–Suvarnabhumi, Cancún, Colombo, Denpasar, Ho Chi Minh City, Mombasa, Phuket, Port Louis, Puerto Plata, Punta Cana, Rio de Janeiro–Galeão,Varadero.

Regarding profitability and long term viability of LOT. The airline has now the chance to prove that it can remain viable in the long-term, but even if it does not it shouldn't be just allowed to die. Airlines facilitate trade and cooperation between nations and therefore are of vital strategic importance to countries. That is why governments in Italy and Malaysia are not willing to let their airlines just die. Of course you can just route everything through Frankfurt and Munich, but having a direct flight is always better for business. I am sure France or Germany would never let their national airlines die if they were on the brink as they are just too vital of an strategic asset to lose.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:27 pm

Speaking of BUD, LOT is looking at launching BUD-BEG flights with the E195 it is going to base at BUD. The airline is expanding its short-haul flying in order to help fill the long haul operations out of Budapest so I can see more routes being launched from the Hungarian capital.

Source: https://www.pasazer.com/news/41122/lot,em,z,budapesztu,do,belgradu.html
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:52 pm

Milka wrote:
Lack of future expansion possibilities is certainly a major problem for WAW in the long term. There might be land left to add additional terminal space and parking positions. There is not however, any space to add a 3rd runway in order to have two independent operational runways. The two intersecting runways will reach their maximum capacity eventually and add to that the night curfew and there is just no way around the capacity constraints other than a new airport eventually. What the current government is proposing might be too early and too much but it is eventually going to happen that I am sure. The issue is how long should one keep investing into an airport that you know wont ever get a parallel runway.

When it comes to seasonality, this remains the major issue for the airline and LOT is aware of it. They are trying to tackle seasonality by launching ever more seasonal routes for the winter. So far these include: Bangkok–Suvarnabhumi, Cancún, Colombo, Denpasar, Ho Chi Minh City, Mombasa, Phuket, Port Louis, Puerto Plata, Punta Cana, Rio de Janeiro–Galeão,Varadero.

Regarding profitability and long term viability of LOT. The airline has now the chance to prove that it can remain viable in the long-term, but even if it does not it shouldn't be just allowed to die. Airlines facilitate trade and cooperation between nations and therefore are of vital strategic importance to countries. That is why governments in Italy and Malaysia are not willing to let their airlines just die. Of course you can just route everything through Frankfurt and Munich, but having a direct flight is always better for business. I am sure France or Germany would never let their national airlines die if they were on the brink as they are just too vital of an strategic asset to lose.

As oftentimes on this website, once again an argument for "my airport needs more runways or it can't ever grow". And as always, these people are reminded of the fact that Heathrow doesn't have 5 runways, but 2, and that Gatwick has a single runway in use at any given time. And they are managing a lot more aircraft movements than WAW.

Governments in Italy and Malaysia are hardly good examples to follow, if you may excuse, and their unwillingness to shut down their lossmaking national airlines has very little to nothing to do with protecting their countries. It is more about protecting their own hide... Countries as diverse as Paraguay, Peru, Hungary and Estonia all thrive in spite of their national airlines having been shut down. And if they don't, the problem is not a lack of a local airline. Aa long as there are transport options, all is fine. And there always will be. BUD is served from more airports today than during the Malév days, so is Lima compared to the AeroPerú era.

Oh, and please don't take this as me saying it would be a good thing if LOT went under or that I think that it will - I don't. Just making a comment on your post.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:01 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
As oftentimes on this website, once again an argument for "my airport needs more runways or it can't ever grow". And as always, these people are reminded of the fact that Heathrow doesn't have 5 runways, but 2, and that Gatwick has a single runway in use at any given time. And they are managing a lot more aircraft movements than WAW.


Do you have trouble understanding the English language or something? I said that WAW will eventually be capacity constrained as the airport has no room for a parallel runway. In case you didn't know Heathrow has two parallel runways and building a third, whilst Gatwick has space for a 2nd parallel runway. So both these airports do not suffer from the same problem that WAW will EVENTUALLY confront.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:06 am

Milka wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
As oftentimes on this website, once again an argument for "my airport needs more runways or it can't ever grow". And as always, these people are reminded of the fact that Heathrow doesn't have 5 runways, but 2, and that Gatwick has a single runway in use at any given time. And they are managing a lot more aircraft movements than WAW.


Do you have trouble understanding the English language or something? I said that WAW will eventually be capacity constrained as the airport has no room for a parallel runway. In case you didn't know Heathrow has two parallel runways and building a third, whilst Gatwick has space for a 2nd parallel runway. So both these airports do not suffer from the same problem that WAW will EVENTUALLY confront.

Thank you for yet another insult.

In fact, Gatwick does have 2 parallel runways, but they cannot be used both at the same time. There is no plan to expand Gatwick with a third runway parallel to the existing ones. In all senses practical, Gatwick will remain with its current capacity, but that is not the point. It is, rather, that even using one single runway, it is possible to handle far more movements than WAW does or probably will see in the foreseeable future. Last year, LGW had roughly twice as many movements as WAW. Again...with one single runway in use at any time.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:18 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
In fact, Gatwick does have 2 parallel runways, but they cannot be used both at the same time. There is no plan to expand Gatwick with a third runway parallel to the existing ones. In all senses practical, Gatwick will remain with its current capacity, but that is not the point. It is, rather, that even using one single runway, it is possible to handle far more movements than WAW does or probably will see in the foreseeable future.


Well I am glad no one is going to take advice from your crystal ball about the future of Warsaw. Coming back to Gatwick, as you said yourself the two runways cannot be used both at the same time so the airport does not have two "independent" parallel runways it can operate at the same time and therefore is a single runway airport. Gatwick indeed has plans for a "third" runway, they are just currently on hold as LHR is getting its first. I understand that you seem to only be able to look back in time but there is a point in the future when both WAW and LGW will need additional runway capacity. Therefore, both governments need to plan for the long-term as that is their responsibility, any new airport being built near Warsaw wont be operational for at least another 10 years, by that time WAW will indeed face capacity constraints that won't be solvable without more runways.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4534
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:44 am

Just because LGW and LHR have two runways doesn't mean it's by choice. If they could, I am sure LHR would have at least 5 runways by now. If WAW keeps on growing then why not add more runways? It will make operations way smoother and flying much safer as there won't be a need to cram all flights onto a single (or two) runway.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:56 am

Well I am glad no one is going to take advice from your crystal ball about the future of Warsaw. Coming back to Gatwick, as you said yourself the two runways cannot be used both at the same time so the airport does not have two "independent" parallel runways it can operate at the same time and therefore is a single runway airport. Gatwick indeed has plans for a "third" runway, they are just currently on hold as LHR is getting its first. I understand that you seem to only be able to look back in time but there is a point in the future when both WAW and LGW will need additional runway capacity. Therefore, both governments need to plan for the long-term as that is their responsibility, any new airport being built near Warsaw wont be operational for at least another 10 years, by that time WAW will indeed face capacity constraints that won't be solvable without more runways.


Dude, WAW should be able to handle at least 25mln pax and 2x as many movements as it does now even with a single runway. The problem isnt the runways its asinine European curfews and artificial slot controls. Both of those factors are not a justification for building a new airport.
 
swapcv
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:26 am

Ok, a bit specific about LOT. Does anybody know the exact BOW, ZFW, MTOW of their 787-8 and 787-9 and Cost Indexes used by them. I know that they have their own fleet page with some of the stats, but seeing them, they look rather heavily padded to the point of being inaccurate. Hence I needed some insight as to what the real specs were. Thanks.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:50 am

LOT767301ER wrote:

Dude, WAW should be able to handle at least 25mln pax and 2x as many movements as it does now even with a single runway. The problem isnt the runways its asinine European curfews and artificial slot controls. Both of those factors are not a justification for building a new airport.


Well you pretty much listed all the reason why a parallel runway is required, the airport will most likely exceed 20m pax this year so at current growth rates 25m will achieved in the next 3-4 years. As you mention curfews and slot controls are the biggest obstacle and you know very well that these are here to stay, especially at an airport that is so close to the city centre. So yes there is justification to build a greenfield airport, not now, but a new one will be needed in 10-15 years time that is certain.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:24 am

LOT767301ER wrote:
Well I am glad no one is going to take advice from your crystal ball about the future of Warsaw. Coming back to Gatwick, as you said yourself the two runways cannot be used both at the same time so the airport does not have two "independent" parallel runways it can operate at the same time and therefore is a single runway airport. Gatwick indeed has plans for a "third" runway, they are just currently on hold as LHR is getting its first. I understand that you seem to only be able to look back in time but there is a point in the future when both WAW and LGW will need additional runway capacity. Therefore, both governments need to plan for the long-term as that is their responsibility, any new airport being built near Warsaw wont be operational for at least another 10 years, by that time WAW will indeed face capacity constraints that won't be solvable without more runways.


Dude, WAW should be able to handle at least 25mln pax and 2x as many movements as it does now even with a single runway. The problem isnt the runways its asinine European curfews and artificial slot controls. Both of those factors are not a justification for building a new airport.

Thank you for bringing sanity into the discussion!
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:19 pm

How about seeking logical solutions to specific capacity constraints, rather than proposing pie-in-the-sky greenfield mega airports.

If passenger numbers are your concern, then terminal expansion is the solution. Next, you have to look at whether you can expand the existing terminal, or whether there’s room for an additional terminal(s). Only, after that should you consider building a greenfield airport. In my opinion, there’s plenty of vacant airport land to expand or build a new terminal at WAW.

If runway capacity is your concern, then airfield improvements are necessary, or a second parallel runway. The airport suffers from a lack of slots only during the morning and late afternoon. The current runway system can handle about 38-40 movements anhour. Planned improvements(high speed exits) will increase that number to 50 movements per hour. A parallel runway would increase that to 90. Is there space for a parallel runway? Yes. Planning studies show there’s certainly room for a second runway. All that’s required is burying a short section of nearby expressway. The land necessary for that expansion is mostly undeveloped.

Image

Another way to increase runway capacity is to increase aircraft size. LOT, the largest carrier at WAW, operates well over half of their flights on regional aircraft with less than 100 seats. There’s significant room for improvement there too.

WAW is far from being at capacity.

The airfield at Chopin Airport has a lot of potential for growth and improvement. The new airport is a political project first and foremost. That’s the uncomfortable truth.

Ask yourself, what garners a bigger emotional response in an election ads? Incremental improvements at an existing airfield or visions of a grand new airport.

There’s your real reason for the new greenfield airport, not lack of capacity at Chopin Airport.

Another thing to consider is that a massive project like a greenfield airport will create opportunities to staff new positions and award contracts in exchange for political favors and kick backs. Hence, the zeal among the political class to build the new airport rather than expand the existing one. Where’s the due diligence to actually assess the existing airports max capacity, the existing airport doesn’t even have a long term master plan.
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:20 pm

How about seeking logical solutions to specific capacity constraints, rather than proposing pie-in-the-sky greenfield mega airports.

If passenger numbers are your concern, then terminal expansion is the solution. Next, you have to look at whether you can expand the existing terminal, or whether there’s room for an additional terminal(s). Only, after that should you consider building a greenfield airport. In my opinion, there’s plenty of vacant airport land to expand or build a new terminal at WAW.

If runway capacity is your concern, then airfield improvements are necessary, or a second parallel runway. The airport suffers from a lack of slots only during the morning and late afternoon. The current runway system can handle about 38-40 movements anhour. Planned improvements(high speed exits) will increase that number to 50 movements per hour. A parallel runway would increase that to 90. Is there space for a parallel runway? Yes. Planning studies show there’s certainly room for a second runway. All that’s required is burying a short section of nearby expressway. The land necessary for that expansion is mostly undeveloped.

Image

Another way to increase runway capacity is to increase aircraft size. LOT, the largest carrier at WAW, operates well over half of their flights on regional aircraft with less than 100 seats. There’s significant room for improvement there too.

WAW is far from being at capacity.

The airfield at Chopin Airport has a lot of potential for growth and improvement. The new airport is a political project first and foremost. That’s the uncomfortable truth.

Ask yourself, what garners a bigger emotional response in an election ads? Incremental improvements at an existing airfield or visions of a grand new airport.

There’s your real reason for the new greenfield airport, not lack of capacity at Chopin Airport.

Another thing to consider is that a massive project like a greenfield airport will create opportunities to staff new positions and award contracts in exchange for political favors and kick backs. Hence, the zeal among the political class to build the new airport rather than expand the existing one. Where’s the due diligence to actually assess the existing airports max capacity, the existing airport doesn’t even have a long term master plan.
 
SRQLOT
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:09 pm

I think the replies on here just keep going in circles since last year’s thread. If everyone would reread we wouldn’t have this every few weeks comments back and forth.
LO LH CL BA AZ WN UA DL AA B6 NK G4 F9
717 733/7/8/9/M8 744 752/3 763 772 788 319/20/21 332/3 M90 RJ85 CR9 Q400 E7/95 (PA28,152)
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:28 pm

qf789 wrote:
According to South Korea's embassy in Hungary, LOT to start BUD-ICN flights later this year

https://twitter.com/AeronewsRO/status/1 ... 91136?s=20

Interesting.

I wonder if the Samsung, Hankook, Daewoo, LG electronics and car parts manufacturing headquartered in South Korea but churning out widgets in Hungary is enough business traffic to fill a front cabin.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:46 pm

Well you pretty much listed all the reason why a parallel runway is required, the airport will most likely exceed 20m pax this year so at current growth rates 25m will achieved in the next 3-4 years. As you mention curfews and slot controls are the biggest obstacle and you know very well that these are here to stay, especially at an airport that is so close to the city centre. So yes there is justification to build a greenfield airport, not now, but a new one will be needed in 10-15 years time that is certain.


Do you know what the words "at least" mean? I wrote exactly the opposite thing. These capacity constraints are nothing but a BS excuse drummed up by a bunch of NIMBYs, IATA and inefficient government regulations. All of these reasons are why the majority of European carriers are basket cases of inefficiency.

Ok, a bit specific about LOT. Does anybody know the exact BOW, ZFW, MTOW of their 787-8 and 787-9 and Cost Indexes used by them. I know that they have their own fleet page with some of the stats, but seeing them, they look rather heavily padded to the point of being inaccurate. Hence I needed some insight as to what the real specs were. Thanks.


You expect a carrier to tell you what CI they are using? What do you need this info for anyway, do you work at an OA's OCC that you are curious or...?

How much do you really know about CI's anyway? You must realize that the majority of competent carriers in day to day ops have a delay mitigator that adjusts dynamically the CI on a flight by flight basis to recooperate lost A14 that usually degrades as the day goes on. On a longer term basis block calculations are sometimes based on different CI rates depending on which season you are in as an extra A14 bump that hasnt been built into the schedule..
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:08 pm

winter wrote:
Yes. Planning studies show there’s certainly room for a second runway. All that’s required is burying a short section of nearby expressway. The land necessary for that expansion is mostly undeveloped.


If you think the proposed plan you attached is even a remote possibility then you have no clue about the realities of WAW and the surrounding political, social and environmental issues. There will never be a third runway at WAW, ever, ergo a greenfield airport is the only solution in the long-run. The city has grown so much that it has surrounded the airport completely and the people living under the flights paths already bitch too much about noise so no government will try to convince them that a third runway is a good thing.

LOT767301ER wrote:
Do you know what the words "at least" mean? I wrote exactly the opposite thing. These capacity constraints are nothing but a BS excuse drummed up by a bunch of NIMBYs, IATA and inefficient government regulations. All of these reasons are why the majority of European carriers are basket cases of inefficiency.


Do you live in Europe? Because if yes then you should know better than thinking there will ever be enough political will change to the situation of WAW. If you don't, then you're excused for your lack of knowledge.
 
emuwarveteran
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:31 pm

yeah, let's just demolish a ton of buildings and roads and build a 3rd runway. new airport is waste of money.

please just stop talking guys i'm getting extreme second hand embarassment here
CL CRJ9, W6 A320
 
winter
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:01 am

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:23 pm

Milka wrote:
winter wrote:
Yes. Planning studies show there’s certainly room for a second runway. All that’s required is burying a short section of nearby expressway. The land necessary for that expansion is mostly undeveloped.


If you think the proposed plan you attached is even a remote possibility then you have no clue about the realities of WAW and the surrounding political, social and environmental issues. There will never be a third runway at WAW, ever, ergo a greenfield airport is the only solution in the long-run. The city has grown so much that it has surrounded the airport completely and the people living under the flights paths already bitch too much about noise so no government will try to convince them that a third runway is a good thing.

LOT767301ER wrote:
Do you know what the words "at least" mean? I wrote exactly the opposite thing. These capacity constraints are nothing but a BS excuse drummed up by a bunch of NIMBYs, IATA and inefficient government regulations. All of these reasons are why the majority of European carriers are basket cases of inefficiency.


Do you live in Europe? Because if yes then you should know better than thinking there will ever be enough political will change to the situation of WAW. If you don't, then you're excused for your lack of knowledge.


I’d love for you to show me where the “city completely surrounded the airport”. I literally landed at WAW today I saw empty land with my own eyes, but a quick peek at an aerial photo shows that the land necessary for a third runway is not dense urban development. It’s mostly undeveloped land.

If LHR is able to build a third runway despite, expensive land procurement, much denser neighboring development and noise pollution over Central London, if Frankfurt is able to build a new runway in the middle of a local forest(seemingly unthinkable by EU environmental standards), and O’Hare is able to reconfigure nearly every runway and triple noise pollution over dense neighborhoods of Northwest Chicago, then surely Warsaw can expand its own airport without the need to spend tens of billions on a new greenfield project.

The really issue is that proper cost-benefit analyses haven’t been done comparing the the cost of expanding the existing airfield to its full potential with a greenfield airport. Instead, the government arbitrarily dismissed(similarly to you) the notion, and declared the new airport a necessity.

A recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Varsovians were against the idea of building a new airport.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:58 pm

winter wrote:
A recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Varsovians were against the idea of building a new airport.


And so I am, believe me. I really like Chopin airport and the quick ride to down town from it, so I wish they'd built a parallel runway with a brand new centre terminal. However, unlike you I do know this is never going to happen unfortunately. You can give me a thousand reasons why you think it is possible and all of them might be plausible. But having worked in Poland's aviation industry I just do not see it as a realistic possibility, and when something is not possible you have to plan alternatives.
 
Milka
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: LOT News Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:51 pm

Since we are on the topic of airports and possible growth options for LOT, Krakow airport just announced its expansion plans. The Terminal will be expanded from 55k to 80k m2 to increase capacity to 12 million. This is the corner stone of the 1 billion PLN airport improvement programme which also includes a new cargo terminal, new taxiways and parking bays. Once completed this will give LOT the opportunity to grow its long-haul operations from Krakow.

Image

Image

Image

Source: https://www.pasazer.com/news/41158/rozb ... kowie.html
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 17

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos