fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:19 pm

Couple of experienced airlines in Europe have narrowbody-only fleet with just one widebody, usually serving just one long haul destination. Two examples: CSA Czech Airlines with about 13 narrowbodies and just one A330-300 mostly used for Prague PRG – Seoul ICN service. Second example: Air Serbia with about 20 active narrowbodies and just one A330-200 used for Belgrade BEG – New York JFK service.

Other than keeping current status quo, what is the most likely outcome for those long haul services: adding more long haul airplanes and expanding the list of long haul destinations; or eventually removing that one airframe from the service and reversing to mid/shorthaul-only service?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6168
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:37 pm

fly2moon wrote:
removing that one airframe from the service and reversing to mid/shorthaul-only service?


Ding!

Unless they get great yield premiums with a marquis route, cost pressures from carriers that operate sub-fleets big enough for economies of scale (20+ of a single type) are going to kill them.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:42 pm

JU's BEG-JFK was a political move at first but the route has actually considerably improved in recent times mostly thanks to transfer passengers that are flying to/from JFK via BEG. This summer JU actually increased it to 6 weekly.
 
User avatar
FlyRow
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:05 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:52 pm

A lot of small African airlines do the same!
F70-F100-RJ85-RJ70-E190-319-320-321-733-734-735-737-738-752-753-763-764-772-744-380
 
flyby519
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:00 pm

I can’t imagine it makes economic sense to buy a single WB and operate a route like this, so I doubt poor performance or losing money will result in ending service. It seems like a lot of these carriers serve the routes for political/prestige type reasons.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1713
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:01 pm

Air Greenland A330?
 
upperdeckfan
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:01 pm

cschleic wrote:
Air Greenland A330?


Much different case, they rely on cargo to make a profit
748,744,742,741,772,773,762,763,
764, 789, 732,733,735,737,738,739,
752, 722, 717,74M,DC10,DC9,M82,
M83, M87, M88,310,319,320,321,332,
333, 343, 346,359,388,L1011,CR2,
CR7, CR9,CRK, E175,E190,ATR42,
DSH8, CS1,CS3
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:11 pm

Blerg wrote:
JU's BEG-JFK was a political move at first but the route has actually considerably improved in recent times mostly thanks to transfer passengers that are flying to/from JFK via BEG. This summer JU actually increased it to 6 weekly.


Keeping one A330 around requires additional crew training, maintenance, long haul in-flight entertainment, dedicated catering, and so on. Does it make sense for just one frame? Not likely.

At least CSA Airlines recently ordered three Airbus A321XLR. That will give them wings for transatlantic flights to JFK and YYZ they operated years ago with A310. For them single longhaul frame exit strategy might be in expansion using A321XLR.

Air Serbia declined converting Etihad 10 A320NEO order to A220/A321XLR. They don't seem to have any exit strategy once current A330 lease ends.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:48 pm

Note CSA currently has the A330 basically so KE can get around bilateral restrictions and offer a ICN-PRG daily schedule.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:22 pm

Polot wrote:
Note CSA currently has the A330 basically so KE can get around bilateral restrictions and offer a ICN-PRG daily schedule.


And that plane is KE on the inside, often with one KE FA. When KE retires that fleet, I expect one B789 to be assigned to OK.

The existence of wide body ACMI operators in Europe is what permits operations with one wide-body.

As for JU, they get feed from Montenegro and I could see them also seeking feed from other former Yugoslavia countries.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:28 pm

fly2moon wrote:
Two examples: CSA Czech Airlines with about 13 narrowbodies and just one A330-300 mostly used for Prague PRG – Seoul ICN service.
Second example: Air Serbia with about 20 active narrowbodies and just one A330-200 used for Belgrade BEG – New York JFK service.


In general low cost carriers have trouble operating a small number of widebody aircraft (like WOW airlines).

Other than the big three airlines the only airline in the USA to purchase or lease widebodies is Hawaiian Airlines which has a full fleet of 24 widebodies. They use them for their east coast destinations (Boston and JFK), all of their Pacific international destinations plus Guam, and to the biggest mainland destinations, LAX, SFO, SEA, LAS, PHX. That basic fact is unlikely to change, although a newer crop of long range narrow bodies may open up some routes previously unavailable.

But your examples are both flag carriers. Czech Airlines is leasing their widebody from their partner Korean Air for the sole purpose of flying to Seoul (4,459 nm). If they can't make a profit, then it is likely Korean Air will fly the same route with the same jet.

Air Serbia seems to want the prestige of flying to JFK a distance of 3,920 nautical miles. Since the A321XLR advertises ranges up to 4700 nm they may simply retire their A330 and add the A321XLR to their existing fleet of 12 Airbus narrowbodies.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:58 pm

fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
JU's BEG-JFK was a political move at first but the route has actually considerably improved in recent times mostly thanks to transfer passengers that are flying to/from JFK via BEG. This summer JU actually increased it to 6 weekly.


Keeping one A330 around requires additional crew training, maintenance, long haul in-flight entertainment, dedicated catering, and so on. Does it make sense for just one frame? Not likely.

At least CSA Airlines recently ordered three Airbus A321XLR. That will give them wings for transatlantic flights to JFK and YYZ they operated years ago with A310. For them single longhaul frame exit strategy might be in expansion using A321XLR.

Air Serbia declined converting Etihad 10 A320NEO order to A220/A321XLR. They don't seem to have any exit strategy once current A330 lease ends.


Like I said, the route performance is improving and the losses are slowly being reduced. Have you considered that is their exist strategy? Their biggest issue is that they were forced to launch JFK long before their regional network was strong enough to sustain those flights. This is slowly starting to change as they are consolidating their position in the (wider) region. This October they had their best ever month in terms of passengers and so on. So they seem to be moving in the right direction.

In terms of network and operations, JU seems to be having a much clearer strategy than OK.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:59 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Note CSA currently has the A330 basically so KE can get around bilateral restrictions and offer a ICN-PRG daily schedule.


And that plane is KE on the inside, often with one KE FA. When KE retires that fleet, I expect one B789 to be assigned to OK.

The existence of wide body ACMI operators in Europe is what permits operations with one wide-body.

As for JU, they get feed from Montenegro and I could see them also seeking feed from other former Yugoslavia countries.


JU feeds its New York flights with passengers from Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Athens and Thessaloniki.
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:47 pm

Blerg wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
JU's BEG-JFK was a political move at first but the route has actually considerably improved in recent times mostly thanks to transfer passengers that are flying to/from JFK via BEG. This summer JU actually increased it to 6 weekly.


Keeping one A330 around requires additional crew training, maintenance, long haul in-flight entertainment, dedicated catering, and so on. Does it make sense for just one frame? Not likely.

At least CSA Airlines recently ordered three Airbus A321XLR. That will give them wings for transatlantic flights to JFK and YYZ they operated years ago with A310. For them single longhaul frame exit strategy might be in expansion using A321XLR.

Air Serbia declined converting Etihad 10 A320NEO order to A220/A321XLR. They don't seem to have any exit strategy once current A330 lease ends.


Like I said, the route performance is improving and the losses are slowly being reduced. Have you considered that is their exist strategy? Their biggest issue is that they were forced to launch JFK long before their regional network was strong enough to sustain those flights. This is slowly starting to change as they are consolidating their position in the (wider) region. This October they had their best ever month in terms of passengers and so on. So they seem to be moving in the right direction.

In terms of network and operations, JU seems to be having a much clearer strategy than OK.


Actually Air Serbia increased JFK from 5 per week to 6 per week in 2018 with solid CLF reported during summer months by Bureau of Transportation Statistics. They have hit proverbial glass ceiling for the second summer in the row with what can be done with only one aircraft during peak months. Moving up to second widebody in order to launch other long haul destination does not seem to be in the works. Air Serbia seems to be missing a boat on launching Toronto YYZ in 2020.

From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:44 pm

fly2moon wrote:
From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.


Great Circle Routes from JFK to Eastern Europes are:
JFK BUD -3,798 nm (Budapest)
JFK DME -4,085 nm (Moscow)
JFK ATH -4,294 nm (Athens)
JFK IST - 4,345 nm (Istanbul
It is possible that any city in Europe will be able to fly to JFK using an A321XLR.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:42 am

PacoMartin wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.


Great Circle Routes from JFK to Eastern Europes are:
JFK BUD -3,798 nm (Budapest)
JFK DME -4,085 nm (Moscow)
JFK ATH -4,294 nm (Athens)
JFK IST - 4,345 nm (Istanbul
It is possible that any city in Europe will be able to fly to JFK using an A321XLR.


The problem might be capacity. You probably would be dealing with a B6 Mint-style configuration...and might such be too little plane, especially to ATH and IST? (JFK to IST is 3 times daily on passenger flights.)

As for JU, with the lease on this 9W plane ending, and plenty of RR Trent 772B/C-60 A332s available, it may be time to lease in 2 of those frames, or maybe EY could transfer two A332s over to JU.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:00 am

fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
fly2moon wrote:

Keeping one A330 around requires additional crew training, maintenance, long haul in-flight entertainment, dedicated catering, and so on. Does it make sense for just one frame? Not likely.

At least CSA Airlines recently ordered three Airbus A321XLR. That will give them wings for transatlantic flights to JFK and YYZ they operated years ago with A310. For them single longhaul frame exit strategy might be in expansion using A321XLR.

Air Serbia declined converting Etihad 10 A320NEO order to A220/A321XLR. They don't seem to have any exit strategy once current A330 lease ends.


Like I said, the route performance is improving and the losses are slowly being reduced. Have you considered that is their exist strategy? Their biggest issue is that they were forced to launch JFK long before their regional network was strong enough to sustain those flights. This is slowly starting to change as they are consolidating their position in the (wider) region. This October they had their best ever month in terms of passengers and so on. So they seem to be moving in the right direction.

In terms of network and operations, JU seems to be having a much clearer strategy than OK.


Actually Air Serbia increased JFK from 5 per week to 6 per week in 2018 with solid CLF reported during summer months by Bureau of Transportation Statistics. They have hit proverbial glass ceiling for the second summer in the row with what can be done with only one aircraft during peak months. Moving up to second widebody in order to launch other long haul destination does not seem to be in the works. Air Serbia seems to be missing a boat on launching Toronto YYZ in 2020.

From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.


No, it does not remain a possible outcome because the political party that insisted on JFK flights will still be in power in 2021. Air Serbia is getting subsidies to run these New York flights so it's not like they have to cover the losses from their own pockets. Furthermore, the more JU's regional network grows, the easier it will become to maintain these operations. It's not uncommon in summer to have 125 passengers from Podgorica out of which 120 continue to New York, same situation with Tirana. I am sure next summer their regional network will see more flights so more connections to New York will be possible.

And by the way, adding a second A330 is not only a difficult task for JU but also for BEG which is nearing capacity. This year the airport is expected to handle some 6.2 million passengers, up from 5.6 million, while terminal's capacity is 7 million. Next year will be a good one with LX adding 5 flights, EW 3, LO 7, easyJet increasing GVA to 4 from 3, JU increasing BCN to 3 (with more increases to come). There is just no room to park another widebody which requires two gates.

My guess is that Air Canada Rouge could launch BEG flights with their B767 since that one can be parked at the A1 gate thus not disrupting airport operations like an A330 does.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:03 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.


Great Circle Routes from JFK to Eastern Europes are:
JFK BUD -3,798 nm (Budapest)
JFK DME -4,085 nm (Moscow)
JFK ATH -4,294 nm (Athens)
JFK IST - 4,345 nm (Istanbul
It is possible that any city in Europe will be able to fly to JFK using an A321XLR.


The problem might be capacity. You probably would be dealing with a B6 Mint-style configuration...and might such be too little plane, especially to ATH and IST? (JFK to IST is 3 times daily on passenger flights.)

As for JU, with the lease on this 9W plane ending, and plenty of RR Trent 772B/C-60 A332s available, it may be time to lease in 2 of those frames, or maybe EY could transfer two A332s over to JU.


From what I remember EY A330 engines do not match the ones JU has. Also, EY isn't really a good partner, they retired their A319s without offering them to JU which could have used them since they are struggling to find decent ones on the market. Even this year's C-check on the A330 wasn't performed in Rome or Abu Dhabi but in Istanbul. The JU-EY partnership is a mere formality at this point.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:24 am

flyby519 wrote:
I can’t imagine it makes economic sense to buy a single WB and operate a route like this, so I doubt poor performance or losing money will result in ending service. It seems like a lot of these carriers serve the routes for political/prestige type reasons.


Sometimes its for strategic purposes, such as attracting tourists through point to point direct flights from countries with tourism potential - as with the case of Air Tanzania
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:12 am

Blerg wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Note CSA currently has the A330 basically so KE can get around bilateral restrictions and offer a ICN-PRG daily schedule.


And that plane is KE on the inside, often with one KE FA. When KE retires that fleet, I expect one B789 to be assigned to OK.

The existence of wide body ACMI operators in Europe is what permits operations with one wide-body.

As for JU, they get feed from Montenegro and I could see them also seeking feed from other former Yugoslavia countries.


JU feeds its New York flights with passengers from Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Athens and Thessaloniki.


By subsidies is it meant payment for the Serbia Creates livery or something else concerning specifically this route?

Given their LF is good, I am also curious what is bringing these losses. Is it too many transfers vs O&D, or too low fares necessitated to keep limited O&D home and attract transfers with too small pool of possible transfers to pick from? Or is the cost of keeping one frame just too high?
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:33 am

artflyer wrote:
Blerg wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

And that plane is KE on the inside, often with one KE FA. When KE retires that fleet, I expect one B789 to be assigned to OK.

The existence of wide body ACMI operators in Europe is what permits operations with one wide-body.

As for JU, they get feed from Montenegro and I could see them also seeking feed from other former Yugoslavia countries.


JU feeds its New York flights with passengers from Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Athens and Thessaloniki.


By subsidies is it meant payment for the Serbia Creates livery or something else concerning specifically this route?

Given their LF is good, I am also curious what is bringing these losses. Is it too many transfers vs O&D, or too low fares necessitated to keep limited O&D home and attract transfers with too small pool of possible transfers to pick from? Or is the cost of keeping one frame just too high?


Serbia Creates was one way to give them money but I personally think it was a bit of a vanity project by our prime minister, they even have a small section at the airport branded in the same way. Air Serbia is one of 63 Serbian companies that are considered of vital importance and together they will share €80 million in 2020. The past two years JU received €20 million from the budget, down from €73 million in 2013. Charter traffic is their bread and butter, this year they recorded a 10% increase in traffic and it is expected that it will further grow by 15% in 2020.

As for New York, from what I heard the airline makes money in May, June, July, August and September and that's about it. Unfortunately they don't make enough in summer to cover the losses in winter. It's encouraging that losses are going down each year. Hopefully in a year or two they manage to break-even, especially as they keep on boosting their winter flying. For example this winter they boosted Ljubljana from 11 to 17 weekly flights, Tirana from 6 to 9 (three flights upgraded from Atr to A319), Bucharest from 6 to 7, Thessaloniki from 4 to 5, Larnaca from 1 to 2, Venice from 2 to 3...
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:33 am

Blerg wrote:
artflyer wrote:
Blerg wrote:

JU feeds its New York flights with passengers from Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Athens and Thessaloniki.


By subsidies is it meant payment for the Serbia Creates livery or something else concerning specifically this route?

Given their LF is good, I am also curious what is bringing these losses. Is it too many transfers vs O&D, or too low fares necessitated to keep limited O&D home and attract transfers with too small pool of possible transfers to pick from? Or is the cost of keeping one frame just too high?


Serbia Creates was one way to give them money but I personally think it was a bit of a vanity project by our prime minister, they even have a small section at the airport branded in the same way. Air Serbia is one of 63 Serbian companies that are considered of vital importance and together they will share €80 million in 2020. The past two years JU received €20 million from the budget, down from €73 million in 2013. Charter traffic is their bread and butter, this year they recorded a 10% increase in traffic and it is expected that it will further grow by 15% in 2020.

As for New York, from what I heard the airline makes money in May, June, July, August and September and that's about it. Unfortunately they don't make enough in summer to cover the losses in winter. It's encouraging that losses are going down each year. Hopefully in a year or two they manage to break-even, especially as they keep on boosting their winter flying. For example this winter they boosted Ljubljana from 11 to 17 weekly flights, Tirana from 6 to 9 (three flights upgraded from Atr to A319), Bucharest from 6 to 7, Thessaloniki from 4 to 5, Larnaca from 1 to 2, Venice from 2 to 3...


They have such a beautiful livery and unfortunately it cannot be said so about this special livery. It would be just better if they painted, Norwegian style, picture of Tesla on the plane.

I just wonder how the increase in all this regional traffic can contribute to better results on the JFK route, given they apparently don't have an issue with lack of pax, but either too low fares or too high costs on this route. So I assume they want to have a bigger or maybe different pool of transfer pax, so they may be more picky about these transfer pax and charge them more than they are currently able to do.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:40 am

artflyer wrote:
Blerg wrote:
artflyer wrote:

By subsidies is it meant payment for the Serbia Creates livery or something else concerning specifically this route?

Given their LF is good, I am also curious what is bringing these losses. Is it too many transfers vs O&D, or too low fares necessitated to keep limited O&D home and attract transfers with too small pool of possible transfers to pick from? Or is the cost of keeping one frame just too high?


Serbia Creates was one way to give them money but I personally think it was a bit of a vanity project by our prime minister, they even have a small section at the airport branded in the same way. Air Serbia is one of 63 Serbian companies that are considered of vital importance and together they will share €80 million in 2020. The past two years JU received €20 million from the budget, down from €73 million in 2013. Charter traffic is their bread and butter, this year they recorded a 10% increase in traffic and it is expected that it will further grow by 15% in 2020.

As for New York, from what I heard the airline makes money in May, June, July, August and September and that's about it. Unfortunately they don't make enough in summer to cover the losses in winter. It's encouraging that losses are going down each year. Hopefully in a year or two they manage to break-even, especially as they keep on boosting their winter flying. For example this winter they boosted Ljubljana from 11 to 17 weekly flights, Tirana from 6 to 9 (three flights upgraded from Atr to A319), Bucharest from 6 to 7, Thessaloniki from 4 to 5, Larnaca from 1 to 2, Venice from 2 to 3...


They have such a beautiful livery and unfortunately it cannot be said so about this special livery. It would be just better if they painted, Norwegian style, picture of Tesla on the plane.

I just wonder how the increase in all this regional traffic can contribute to better results on the JFK route, given they apparently don't have an issue with lack of pax, but either too low fares or too high costs on this route. So I assume they want to have a bigger or maybe different pool of transfer pax, so they may be more picky about these transfer pax and charge them more than they are currently able to do.


Well regional flying will improve connectivity which is something JU desperately needs. This is especially the case for their short-haul flights which have a split schedule, for example CPH on some days leaves at 06.35 and on some other at 17.50. So they need regional flights both in the noon wave and the night one. This also applies to JFK which leaves at 07.50 and 13.20.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:45 am

The number of aircraft types available on the market is reducing at a significant rate. As a result we will see airlines with less aircraft types.

It is not surprising we will see airlines drop down to a single widebody type.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:01 am

upperdeckfan wrote:
cschleic wrote:
Air Greenland A330?


Much different case, they rely on cargo to make a profit


The island relies on the A330.
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:41 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
From that perspective, OK is clear in their commitment to long haul using A321XLR as a suitable vehicle. There is no such commitment from Air Serbia, and ending A330 lease in 2021 remains a possible outcome.


Great Circle Routes from JFK to Eastern Europes are:
JFK BUD -3,798 nm (Budapest)
JFK DME -4,085 nm (Moscow)
JFK ATH -4,294 nm (Athens)
JFK IST - 4,345 nm (Istanbul
It is possible that any city in Europe will be able to fly to JFK using an A321XLR.


Some airlines might want to venture beyond JFK and on the other hand there is growing demand from China. Routes like Belgrade BEG - Chicago ORD (4,343 nm) and Belgrade BEG - Shanghai PVG (4,567 nm) might be too much for A321XLR. We'll have to see real performance data once XLR starts flying.
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:54 pm

Blerg wrote:
My guess is that Air Canada Rouge could launch BEG flights with their B767 since that one can be parked at the A1 gate thus not disrupting airport operations like an A330 does.


If Air Canada Rouge launches seasonal S2021 Toronto YYZ - Belgrade BEG (one of top unserved transatlantic routes from Belgrade), that would be one less incentive for Air Serbia to increase the number of widebodies and compete against Air Canada Rouge on the same route. That development would actually increase the probability of Air Serbia shutting down JFK once A330 lease expires as suitable candidates for long haul expansion like YYZ are taken over by competitors.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:12 pm

fly2moon wrote:
Couple of experienced airlines in Europe have narrowbody-only fleet with just one widebody, usually serving just one long haul destination. Two examples: CSA Czech Airlines with about 13 narrowbodies and just one A330-300 mostly used for Prague PRG – Seoul ICN service. Second example: Air Serbia with about 20 active narrowbodies and just one A330-200 used for Belgrade BEG – New York JFK service.

Other than keeping current status quo, what is the most likely outcome for those long haul services: adding more long haul airplanes and expanding the list of long haul destinations; or eventually removing that one airframe from the service and reversing to mid/shorthaul-only service?


Edit: NM, misunderstood point of thread.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 657
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:28 pm

Do you mean one wide body plane or one type of plane? I would imagine a scheduling disaster if the plane needed to be repaired.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:08 pm

fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
My guess is that Air Canada Rouge could launch BEG flights with their B767 since that one can be parked at the A1 gate thus not disrupting airport operations like an A330 does.


If Air Canada Rouge launches seasonal S2021 Toronto YYZ - Belgrade BEG (one of top unserved transatlantic routes from Belgrade), that would be one less incentive for Air Serbia to increase the number of widebodies and compete against Air Canada Rouge on the same route. That development would actually increase the probability of Air Serbia shutting down JFK once A330 lease expires as suitable candidates for long haul expansion like YYZ are taken over by competitors.


Are you even familiar with Serbia and the way things work there? Saying that JU will terminate JFK just because Rouge launches YYZ makes no sense especially since JU has literally zero intentions of launching new long-haul destinations. They are focused on short-haul at the moment.

And anyway, ORD is probably as large as YYZ and Chinese destinations could also be an option in the future.
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:18 pm

Blerg wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
My guess is that Air Canada Rouge could launch BEG flights with their B767 since that one can be parked at the A1 gate thus not disrupting airport operations like an A330 does.


If Air Canada Rouge launches seasonal S2021 Toronto YYZ - Belgrade BEG (one of top unserved transatlantic routes from Belgrade), that would be one less incentive for Air Serbia to increase the number of widebodies and compete against Air Canada Rouge on the same route. That development would actually increase the probability of Air Serbia shutting down JFK once A330 lease expires as suitable candidates for long haul expansion like YYZ are taken over by competitors.


Are you even familiar with Serbia and the way things work there? Saying that JU will terminate JFK just because Rouge launches YYZ makes no sense especially since JU has literally zero intentions of launching new long-haul destinations. They are focused on short-haul at the moment.

And anyway, ORD is probably as large as YYZ and Chinese destinations could also be an option in the future.


I guess fly2moon may have a point here. So, genuinely asking, can they succesfully expand short-haul without having more long-haul. In other words, will there be enough interest from transfer pax for their short-haul, if they were to transfer in BEG only into another short-haul. I guess the loads after the winter expansion will tell us more on that, given that JFK frequency is during that season quite limited.

I also believe that any airline starting long-haul in BEG will have an upper hand and it would be very difficult for JU to go against them on the same route. I would also agree that the number of potentially successfull long-haul routes from BEG is very limited, given that JFK struggles and, as it was picked first, it was probably perceived to be the most viable.
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:16 pm

artflyer wrote:
I also believe that any airline starting long-haul in BEG will have an upper hand and it would be very difficult for JU to go against them on the same route. I would also agree that the number of potentially successfull long-haul routes from BEG is very limited, given that JFK struggles and, as it was picked first, it was probably perceived to be the most viable.


That's the key in my opinion. As Blerg mentioned, ORD is another potential unserved destination. If American Airlines continues their European expansion from Chicago ORD and at one point launches Belgrade BEG, that would cover both Toronto (AC) and Chicago (AA) and leave Air Serbia without uncontested expansion options in North America.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:40 pm

alyusuph wrote:
flyby519 wrote:
I can’t imagine it makes economic sense to buy a single WB and operate a route like this, so I doubt poor performance or losing money will result in ending service. It seems like a lot of these carriers serve the routes for political/prestige type reasons.


Sometimes its for strategic purposes, such as attracting tourists through point to point direct flights from countries with tourism potential - as with the case of Air Tanzania


Indeed. In the case of OK, the only reason why they have the single widebody is because KE can't serve PRG often enough due to the bilateral. Call upon their Skyteam partner to fly the route as well, maximizes what they can do.

OK ordered 3 321XLRs. JFK, YYZ and YUL are the likely places they'll go to.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:42 am

artflyer wrote:
Blerg wrote:
fly2moon wrote:

If Air Canada Rouge launches seasonal S2021 Toronto YYZ - Belgrade BEG (one of top unserved transatlantic routes from Belgrade), that would be one less incentive for Air Serbia to increase the number of widebodies and compete against Air Canada Rouge on the same route. That development would actually increase the probability of Air Serbia shutting down JFK once A330 lease expires as suitable candidates for long haul expansion like YYZ are taken over by competitors.


Are you even familiar with Serbia and the way things work there? Saying that JU will terminate JFK just because Rouge launches YYZ makes no sense especially since JU has literally zero intentions of launching new long-haul destinations. They are focused on short-haul at the moment.

And anyway, ORD is probably as large as YYZ and Chinese destinations could also be an option in the future.


I guess fly2moon may have a point here. So, genuinely asking, can they succesfully expand short-haul without having more long-haul. In other words, will there be enough interest from transfer pax for their short-haul, if they were to transfer in BEG only into another short-haul. I guess the loads after the winter expansion will tell us more on that, given that JFK frequency is during that season quite limited.

I also believe that any airline starting long-haul in BEG will have an upper hand and it would be very difficult for JU to go against them on the same route. I would also agree that the number of potentially successfull long-haul routes from BEG is very limited, given that JFK struggles and, as it was picked first, it was probably perceived to be the most viable.


JU was primarily after short-haul connections, JFK was only added because of political pressure which is why the government is paying for it.

I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it. This summer they launched a whole bunch of new routes and all were extremely successful. Krasnodar seems to be one of the best performing new destinations as it was kept as 3 weekly in winter (all other were launched with 2 flights). Generally advance bookings are up by some 20% this winter so their business model seems to be working.

I feel that many on here judge JU without even knowing that many things about it, or the country they are based in. Air Serbia is offering connections from Western Europe to places like Split, Dubrovnik, Zadar, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Thessaloniki, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest, Krasnodar, Moscow, Larnaca, Beirut, Tel Aviv and Cairo.

When it comes to Western Europe-Balkans connectivity, I think they are among the best out there. Maybe only Austrian Airlines and Lufthansa offer superior connecting opportunities ... They found their niche market and they are working on consolidating it. Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.

When writing about JU, remember they are more like airBaltic just that they have the JFK route.

p.s. one reason why the government also insists on JFK is because the route carries an insane amount of cargo.

https://www.exyuaviation.com/2019/02/ai ... sults.html

''JFK Airport is important due to long haul capacity and the capability of covering cargo transportation across the Atlantic to the United States, Canada, and countries in South America, while Moscow has proved crucial for short haul traffic"

Also from the article:

The airline has transported a wide variety of cargo to the United States, including fruit and vegetables from Serbia, mozzarella cheese and textiles from Italy, garments and machine parts from Turkey and Romania, mail from Russia and Greece and safety glass from Croatia. From the other direction, there are regular shipments of cargo from Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil being sent to Serbia and the region. In addition to its nonstop flights to New York, Air Serbia provides road feeder services to 53 cities across the US and Canada.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:49 am

fly2moon wrote:
artflyer wrote:
I also believe that any airline starting long-haul in BEG will have an upper hand and it would be very difficult for JU to go against them on the same route. I would also agree that the number of potentially successfull long-haul routes from BEG is very limited, given that JFK struggles and, as it was picked first, it was probably perceived to be the most viable.


That's the key in my opinion. As Blerg mentioned, ORD is another potential unserved destination. If American Airlines continues their European expansion from Chicago ORD and at one point launches Belgrade BEG, that would cover both Toronto (AC) and Chicago (AA) and leave Air Serbia without uncontested expansion options in North America.


Even if JU decides to expand its long-haul list of destinations, they should look towards China. Serbia and China are extremely close. Serbia is the only country in Europe that doesn't have a visa regime with China.

Chinese arrivals to Serbia are through the roof. In September alone there were 18.154 Chinese tourists (+45%) while in the first nine months of the year there were 110.089 tourists which is an increase of 42%.This is a number that will keep on increasing as Serbia keeps on promoting itself over there. By launching Beijing or Shanghai and securing a code-share agreement (through politics) with one of the local airlines, they could be carrying most of these people in stead of Qatar, Aeroflot and Turkish Airlines.

https://www.exyuaviation.com/2019/03/be ... nghai.html
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:53 am

Blerg wrote:
artflyer wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Are you even familiar with Serbia and the way things work there? Saying that JU will terminate JFK just because Rouge launches YYZ makes no sense especially since JU has literally zero intentions of launching new long-haul destinations. They are focused on short-haul at the moment.

And anyway, ORD is probably as large as YYZ and Chinese destinations could also be an option in the future.


I guess fly2moon may have a point here. So, genuinely asking, can they succesfully expand short-haul without having more long-haul. In other words, will there be enough interest from transfer pax for their short-haul, if they were to transfer in BEG only into another short-haul. I guess the loads after the winter expansion will tell us more on that, given that JFK frequency is during that season quite limited.

I also believe that any airline starting long-haul in BEG will have an upper hand and it would be very difficult for JU to go against them on the same route. I would also agree that the number of potentially successfull long-haul routes from BEG is very limited, given that JFK struggles and, as it was picked first, it was probably perceived to be the most viable.


JU was primarily after short-haul connections, JFK was only added because of political pressure which is why the government is paying for it.

I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it. This summer they launched a whole bunch of new routes and all were extremely successful. Krasnodar seems to be one of the best performing new destinations as it was kept as 3 weekly in winter (all other were launched with 2 flights). Generally advance bookings are up by some 20% this winter so their business model seems to be working.

I feel that many on here judge JU without even knowing that many things about it, or the country they are based in. Air Serbia is offering connections from Western Europe to places like Split, Dubrovnik, Zadar, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Podgorica, Tivat, Tirana, Skopje, Thessaloniki, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest, Krasnodar, Moscow, Larnaca, Beirut, Tel Aviv and Cairo.

When it comes to Western Europe-Balkans connectivity, I think they are among the best out there. Maybe only Austrian Airlines and Lufthansa offer superior connecting opportunities ... They found their niche market and they are working on consolidating it. Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.

When writing about JU, remember they are more like airBaltic just that they have the JFK route.

p.s. one reason why the government also insists on JFK is because the route carries an insane amount of cargo.

https://www.exyuaviation.com/2019/02/ai ... sults.html

''JFK Airport is important due to long haul capacity and the capability of covering cargo transportation across the Atlantic to the United States, Canada, and countries in South America, while Moscow has proved crucial for short haul traffic"

Also from the article:

The airline has transported a wide variety of cargo to the United States, including fruit and vegetables from Serbia, mozzarella cheese and textiles from Italy, garments and machine parts from Turkey and Romania, mail from Russia and Greece and safety glass from Croatia. From the other direction, there are regular shipments of cargo from Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil being sent to Serbia and the region. In addition to its nonstop flights to New York, Air Serbia provides road feeder services to 53 cities across the US and Canada.


Thank you for the extensive answer and best wishes to JU.

The problem with Chinese tourists is that there is no one single point in China through which you could serve all of them.

p.s. comparison to airbaltic is probable not a good one. Air Baltic seems to be permanently loss making and its losses are and in my view will be increasing (when reporting is done according to IFRS and not Estonian GAAP).
 
MettP
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:45 am

Dominion301 wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
flyby519 wrote:
I can’t imagine it makes economic sense to buy a single WB and operate a route like this, so I doubt poor performance or losing money will result in ending service. It seems like a lot of these carriers serve the routes for political/prestige type reasons.


Sometimes its for strategic purposes, such as attracting tourists through point to point direct flights from countries with tourism potential - as with the case of Air Tanzania


Indeed. In the case of OK, the only reason why they have the single widebody is because KE can't serve PRG often enough due to the bilateral. Call upon their Skyteam partner to fly the route as well, maximizes what they can do.

OK ordered 3 321XLRs. JFK, YYZ and YUL are the likely places they'll go to.


It used to be the reason, now a new bilateral agreement has been signed between the EU and South Korea, which replaces the obsolete one, which limited the number of flights. For OK, the route is incredibly profitable, there is a huge amount of Korean tourists coming to Prague and they also manage to get some transfer between Seoul and European cities without direct flights to ICN.

There is a rumour that thanks to that new agreement, OK could lease another A330 to increase the service from 4 times per week to at least daily, because the demand is really big. Personally, I would love to see them starting Tokyo with some spare capacity, the Japanese tourists also flock to the Czech Republic, not only to Prague, but somehow this route seems to be just impossible for PRG...

Talking about the A321XLRs, they will indeed be used for Transatlantic flights, OK said they will be looking at JFK, BOS and YUL.
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:13 am

fly2moon wrote:
Other than keeping current status quo, what is the most likely outcome for those long haul services: adding more long haul airplanes and expanding the list of long haul destinations; or eventually removing that one airframe from the service and reversing to mid/shorthaul-only service?


Airlines operating a single aircraft of a type may find it more beneficial to lease on an ACMI - Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance - basis. Long back, I remember a leasing guru say that ACMI works out cheaper if fleet is less than 5 units.

However, many state owned airlines cannot go in for ACMI leases unless its for a short term due to regulations in various countries.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:15 am

MettP wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
alyusuph wrote:

Sometimes its for strategic purposes, such as attracting tourists through point to point direct flights from countries with tourism potential - as with the case of Air Tanzania


Indeed. In the case of OK, the only reason why they have the single widebody is because KE can't serve PRG often enough due to the bilateral. Call upon their Skyteam partner to fly the route as well, maximizes what they can do.

OK ordered 3 321XLRs. JFK, YYZ and YUL are the likely places they'll go to.


It used to be the reason, now a new bilateral agreement has been signed between the EU and South Korea, which replaces the obsolete one, which limited the number of flights. For OK, the route is incredibly profitable, there is a huge amount of Korean tourists coming to Prague and they also manage to get some transfer between Seoul and European cities without direct flights to ICN.

There is a rumour that thanks to that new agreement, OK could lease another A330 to increase the service from 4 times per week to at least daily, because the demand is really big. Personally, I would love to see them starting Tokyo with some spare capacity, the Japanese tourists also flock to the Czech Republic, not only to Prague, but somehow this route seems to be just impossible for PRG...

Talking about the A321XLRs, they will indeed be used for Transatlantic flights, OK said they will be looking at JFK, BOS and YUL.


Do you mean a new bilateral between Korea and Czechia? The new horizontal aviation agreement between EU and Korea foresaw only removal of the nationality clause, so that for example LH, while not being Czech or Korean carrier, in theory could use the Czechia-Korea bilateral to fly PRG-ICN. There is no open sky. Isn't the current bilateral Czechia-Korea maxed out?

And what about OK no longer being owned by KE - I mean doesn't it mean that from now onwards everybody makes business on this route on its own and in no way OK can be seen as a proxy for KE just to fully use the rights under the bilateral? I guess it could hinder expansion of the bilateral.

Is the delivery date of 321XLRs correlated with the planned expansion of PRG or what is the reason?
 
fly2moon
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:25 pm

Blerg wrote:
I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it.
...
Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.


Those short haul connections are increasingly under attack from low cost airlines. On the other hand connections to long haul flights are immune from LCC competition. LOT Polish for example increased frequency of Belgrade BEG - Warsaw WAW service to better feed its growing list of long haul destinations out of WAW, and seems to be repeating this concept out of Budapest BUD on a smaller scale. It is worth noting LOT does not rely on only one long haul destination of BUD unlike Air Serbia out of BEG.

Lack of room at Belgrade airport did not prevent Air Serbia and other airlines from increasing short haul presence and should not prevent any long haul airline from offering two or three weekly services. VINCI presented some expansion pictures earlier this year that look like 3 or 4 additional widebody gates might be added to C concourse. That could be doable by summer of 2021.
 
MettP
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:21 pm

artflyer wrote:
MettP wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:

Indeed. In the case of OK, the only reason why they have the single widebody is because KE can't serve PRG often enough due to the bilateral. Call upon their Skyteam partner to fly the route as well, maximizes what they can do.

OK ordered 3 321XLRs. JFK, YYZ and YUL are the likely places they'll go to.


It used to be the reason, now a new bilateral agreement has been signed between the EU and South Korea, which replaces the obsolete one, which limited the number of flights. For OK, the route is incredibly profitable, there is a huge amount of Korean tourists coming to Prague and they also manage to get some transfer between Seoul and European cities without direct flights to ICN.

There is a rumour that thanks to that new agreement, OK could lease another A330 to increase the service from 4 times per week to at least daily, because the demand is really big. Personally, I would love to see them starting Tokyo with some spare capacity, the Japanese tourists also flock to the Czech Republic, not only to Prague, but somehow this route seems to be just impossible for PRG...

Talking about the A321XLRs, they will indeed be used for Transatlantic flights, OK said they will be looking at JFK, BOS and YUL.


Do you mean a new bilateral between Korea and Czechia? The new horizontal aviation agreement between EU and Korea foresaw only removal of the nationality clause, so that for example LH, while not being Czech or Korean carrier, in theory could use the Czechia-Korea bilateral to fly PRG-ICN. There is no open sky. Isn't the current bilateral Czechia-Korea maxed out?

And what about OK no longer being owned by KE - I mean doesn't it mean that from now onwards everybody makes business on this route on its own and in no way OK can be seen as a proxy for KE just to fully use the rights under the bilateral? I guess it could hinder expansion of the bilateral.

Is the delivery date of 321XLRs correlated with the planned expansion of PRG or what is the reason?


You’re right, I meant that agreement. Having that rumour about OK’s another A330 in mind I assumed it to replace the agreement between the Czech Republic and South Korea, sorry for that. The agreement, which was signed in early 90’s is indeed maxed out, 4 flights per week operated by carrier from each of the two countries. However, the Czech Ministry of transport lists renegotiating the agreement among their highest priorities in air transport, so it might be changed soon.

It is true that KE has no stake in OK anymore, but the A330 is leased from them. Also both airlines are SkyTeam members, so they do the business on the route independently, but not 100 %, I would say.

And regarding the 321XLRs, the fact that they should be delivered in 2025, the same year the PRG expansion is scheduled to finish, is rather a coincidence. OK and their owner, Smartwings Group, needed to buy time to consolidate their network and fleet, QS was hit really hard by 737 MAX groundings and it would be tough for them to buy 7 planes almost at once. It is a wise decision, the 100 years old CSA brand almost went lost when they expanded too fast in late 2000’s and got into serious problems, so rather a small and slowly growing airline than ending as Malév for example...
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4046
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:14 pm

I wonder if some of these cases doubles as their countries VIP transport
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:33 am

fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it.
...
Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.


Those short haul connections are increasingly under attack from low cost airlines. On the other hand connections to long haul flights are immune from LCC competition. LOT Polish for example increased frequency of Belgrade BEG - Warsaw WAW service to better feed its growing list of long haul destinations out of WAW, and seems to be repeating this concept out of Budapest BUD on a smaller scale. It is worth noting LOT does not rely on only one long haul destination of BUD unlike Air Serbia out of BEG.

Lack of room at Belgrade airport did not prevent Air Serbia and other airlines from increasing short haul presence and should not prevent any long haul airline from offering two or three weekly services. VINCI presented some expansion pictures earlier this year that look like 3 or 4 additional widebody gates might be added to C concourse. That could be doable by summer of 2021.


Well the fact Air Serbia keeps on increasing its short-haul flying only goes to show they are making money there. If they weren't then they would have cut them like they did with Varna, Budapest, Warsaw... and by the way, I spoke with one of the LO representatives and was told most of their connections go to Chicago, northern Europe and to domestic flights in Poland. So they are not as relying on long-haul as you make it seem.

I said that there is no room for JU long-haul expansion, not that there isn't room for it overall. Al-Masria regularly flies its A330 to Belgrade but at times when JU planes have left the airport. This summer BEG was hectic and they already experienced issues with gate space with many planes parked at the B platform. On top of all the JU flights, you had one or two YM planes, two LH and two W6 and OS which either spends the night there or arrives really early. All those planes served by 16 airbridges and three bus gates.

As for short-haul flights being under increasing pressure, yes but most of the destinations from the Balkans are two or three weekly. Very few destinations are served daily or more than that. Not everyone is flexible and not everyone is looking at flying to secondary airports. Maybe someone from Sofia would rather fly to STR than FKB.
 
artflyer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:19 am

fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it.
...
Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.


Those short haul connections are increasingly under attack from low cost airlines. On the other hand connections to long haul flights are immune from LCC competition. LOT Polish for example increased frequency of Belgrade BEG - Warsaw WAW service to better feed its growing list of long haul destinations out of WAW, and seems to be repeating this concept out of Budapest BUD on a smaller scale. It is worth noting LOT does not rely on only one long haul destination of BUD unlike Air Serbia out of BEG.

Lack of room at Belgrade airport did not prevent Air Serbia and other airlines from increasing short haul presence and should not prevent any long haul airline from offering two or three weekly services. VINCI presented some expansion pictures earlier this year that look like 3 or 4 additional widebody gates might be added to C concourse. That could be doable by summer of 2021.


If you want to compete with lcc on sh, in central and eastern Europe you need to make it via frequences (both number of frequences and their convenience). This is how LO crushed here and there Wizz in WAW, despite starting from and flying to the same airport as Wizz. The obvious question is do you have enough clients flying on business to fill all those frequences, even if you use smaller planes (as a downside having a much higher CASK).

In BUD sh by LO doesn't seem to be that much after connections to JFK/ICN. Of course, I am not saying nobody will connect, but they seem to think there must be enough business traffic between BUD and the neighbourhood countries to allow for yet another carrier here and there. In most cases they have a much better transit to JFK/ICN in WAW than in BUD. We shall see.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:37 am

artflyer wrote:
fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it.
...
Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.


Those short haul connections are increasingly under attack from low cost airlines. On the other hand connections to long haul flights are immune from LCC competition. LOT Polish for example increased frequency of Belgrade BEG - Warsaw WAW service to better feed its growing list of long haul destinations out of WAW, and seems to be repeating this concept out of Budapest BUD on a smaller scale. It is worth noting LOT does not rely on only one long haul destination of BUD unlike Air Serbia out of BEG.

Lack of room at Belgrade airport did not prevent Air Serbia and other airlines from increasing short haul presence and should not prevent any long haul airline from offering two or three weekly services. VINCI presented some expansion pictures earlier this year that look like 3 or 4 additional widebody gates might be added to C concourse. That could be doable by summer of 2021.


If you want to compete with lcc on sh, in central and eastern Europe you need to make it via frequences (both number of frequences and their convenience). This is how LO crushed here and there Wizz in WAW, despite starting from and flying to the same airport as Wizz. The obvious question is do you have enough clients flying on business to fill all those frequences, even if you use smaller planes (as a downside having a much higher CASK).

In BUD sh by LO doesn't seem to be that much after connections to JFK/ICN. Of course, I am not saying nobody will connect, but they seem to think there must be enough business traffic between BUD and the neighbourhood countries to allow for yet another carrier here and there. In most cases they have a much better transit to JFK/ICN in WAW than in BUD. We shall see.


In Belgrade JU has done quite well against Wizz Air exactly because it has a much superior timetable. For example their flights to STR have a morning and an evening departure so you can have a whole day either in Belgrade or Stuttgart. With Wizz Air you don't have that option especially since have to spend at least an hour getting to FKB ... if not more. What JU misses in terms of local demand they compensate with connecting traffic. A few weeks ago their morning A320 to CDG was packed to the last seat, among others it had 37 transfers from LCA and 28 from KRR. Wizz Air can't rely on this boost in any way unless they start attracting passengers from neighboring areas.
 
parrotta
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:51 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:27 pm

in BUD lately many tourists transferring to LCCs from the long hauls too. the airport even supports it in hands with kiwi.com.
this week 3 more long haul destinations from BUD to China was announced, starting in december. 2 CKG by HU, 2 XIY and 2 CGD by FM.


fly2moon wrote:
Blerg wrote:
I don't see why they couldn't make it with short-haul connections? They wouldn't be the first airline to do it.
...
Adding more long-haul flights would be a disaster for them especially since there is no more room for growth at BEG. The airport has started expanding its terminal but it will take time for it to be completed.


Those short haul connections are increasingly under attack from low cost airlines. On the other hand connections to long haul flights are immune from LCC competition. LOT Polish for example increased frequency of Belgrade BEG - Warsaw WAW service to better feed its growing list of long haul destinations out of WAW, and seems to be repeating this concept out of Budapest BUD on a smaller scale. It is worth noting LOT does not rely on only one long haul destination of BUD unlike Air Serbia out of BEG.

Lack of room at Belgrade airport did not prevent Air Serbia and other airlines from increasing short haul presence and should not prevent any long haul airline from offering two or three weekly services. VINCI presented some expansion pictures earlier this year that look like 3 or 4 additional widebody gates might be added to C concourse. That could be doable by summer of 2021.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:09 pm

Hopefully articles such as these help promote Serbia in the US. Air Serbia's JFK flights could help a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/trav ... grade.html
 
raylee67
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:01 pm

Air Serbia can move the JFK route to A321XLR and standardize the fleet.

OK's ICN route is really a legacy from its partial ownership by Korean Air. Now that KE no longer owns any of OK, I am not sure if that route (and the leased A333) will stay for long. Korean tourists to Central Europe will most likely prefer to fly on KE. OK can code share on KE's flight. I think they remain on friendly terms.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
MettP
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:58 pm

raylee67 wrote:
OK's ICN route is really a legacy from its partial ownership by Korean Air. Now that KE no longer owns any of OK, I am not sure if that route (and the leased A333) will stay for long. Korean tourists to Central Europe will most likely prefer to fly on KE. OK can code share on KE's flight. I think they remain on friendly terms.

OK make a huge profit on the PRG-ICN route now, there is no way they would voluntarily scrap it. What’s more, until the new air traffic agreement is signed between the Czech Republic and South Korea, neither OK nor KE can increase their frequencies. What I don’t understand is why they don’t try to capitalize more on Prague’s popularity among Asian tourists, especially a route to Japan was discussed many times in media, but the rumours never proved to be true.
 
Blerg
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Future of long haul services with just one widebody?

Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:34 pm

More good news from JU, November was another fantastic month for them. Capacity is up by 9%, passenger numbers rose by 25%. Hopefully JFK improved as well.

https://www.exyuaviation.com/2019/11/ai ... ember.html

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