Just concluded - some takeaways (I will focus on operations, not finance) from what CEO Carsten Spohr said:

- in 2020, minus 76 % pax, - 67 % flights compared to 2019

- at this point, Lufthansa sees no path for the A380 to return to the fleet (the same, unsurprisingly, for the A340-600)

- 747-8 fleet will take over A380-routes (interesting, by the way, that the main slide of the slide show featured two 747-8)

- part of the 787-9 order will go to Lufthansa as Lufthansa needs smaller longhaul aircraft

- by mid-2020, 4 engine aircraft (= 747-8) less than 15 per cent of longhaul fleet

- currently assessment if all aircraft 25 years or older should be retired

- Austrian's A319 fleet will be shifted to Lufthansa Cityline to replace some CR9s

- will launch a new product in conjunction with German Rail (no details given) but stressed that there is relatively litte room for replacement of more domestic flights with trains (one reason given was the importance of feed for the hubs and the lack of a proper integration of MUC into the German HSR network)

- Lufthansa and Swiss to be positioned as "premium carriers", Austrian and Brussels as "Value Carrier" (but failed to explain what exactly it means other that LH and LX offer a first class product)

- strong focus on leisure, 20 / 13 new leisure destinations from FRA/MUC

- expects demand in 2024 to be at 90 per cent of pre-Corona level, but business not to recover to pre Corona levels (currently 30 per cent of all pax are business customers, Lufthansa expects 10-20 per cent of those 30 per cent not to return)

vfw614 wrote:

- Lufthansa and Swiss to be positioned as "premium carriers", Austrian and Brussels as "Value Carrier" (but failed to explain what exactly it means other that LH and LX offer a first class product)

How on earth does that go hand-in-hand with the decision to introduce decidedly non-premium BoB on Lufthansa and Swiss, starting this month?

part of the 787-9 order will go to Lufthansa as Lufthansa needs smaller longhaul aircraft

this part interested me the most and am happy to see LH take this decision though it does further increase LH's own WB fleet mix i.e. 748 359 333 and now 789

VSMUT wrote:

How on earth does that go hand-in-hand with the decision to introduce decidedly non-premium BoB on Lufthansa and Swiss, starting this month?

Per LH / LX press releases, this change is supposed to improve the on-board experience by letting you choose rather than serving something you don't like.

The premium aspect of LH and LX is that you'll get a bottle of water for free, while you'll have to pay for it on OS and SN.

mxaxai wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

How on earth does that go hand-in-hand with the decision to introduce decidedly non-premium BoB on Lufthansa and Swiss, starting this month?

Per LH / LX press releases, this change is supposed to improve the on-board experience by letting you choose rather than serving something you don't like.

Oh yes, and by that metric Ryanair is an ultra-premium experience, I take it?

vfw614 wrote:

(one reason given was the importance of feed for the hubs and the lack of a proper integration of MUC into the German HSR network)

If only there were airports in Germany with good connections to the HSR network ...

At least you can basically depart at Munich's central railway station, in less than 10 minutes, without checking in, to take off, in 10 minutes. Since Munich is growing closer to Bavaria, well, the central station, because all the trains arrive there, obviously.

Or so I heard.

vfw614 wrote:

- expects demand in 2024 to be at 90 per cent of pre-Corona level, but business not to recover to pre Corona levels (currently 30 per cent of all pax are business customers, Lufthansa expects 10-20 per cent of those 30 per cent not to return)

Just noted that this is a bit misleading. It should read: "but number of business customers not to recover to pre Corona levels"

mxaxai wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

How on earth does that go hand-in-hand with the decision to introduce decidedly non-premium BoB on Lufthansa and Swiss, starting this month?

Per LH / LX press releases, this change is supposed to improve the on-board experience by letting you choose rather than serving something you don't like.

The premium aspect of LH and LX is that you'll get a bottle of water for free, while you'll have to pay for it on OS and SN.

Premium= nice and large premium classes that get updated more often. Value carrier= mostly Y, much smaller premium cabins with fewer bells and whistles in those cabins. That’s it. I expect the Y product on LH/LX/OS/SN to all be similar, especially long haul.

Just look at BA, which is largely seen by public as a premium airline despite its Y experience.

behramjee wrote:

part of the 787-9 order will go to Lufthansa as Lufthansa needs smaller longhaul aircraft

this part interested me the most and am happy to see LH take this decision though it does further increase LH's own WB fleet mix i.e. 748 359 333 and now 789

Not really. A340-600, A340-300, A380-800, 747-400 will go at Lufthansa, 777-200 and 767-300 at Austrian, MD11F at Lufthansa Cargo. In a few years time, it will be down to 777, 787-9, 747-8, A350-900 and A330-300 across all airlines of the group.

vfw614 wrote:

behramjee wrote:

part of the 787-9 order will go to Lufthansa as Lufthansa needs smaller longhaul aircraft

this part interested me the most and am happy to see LH take this decision though it does further increase LH's own WB fleet mix i.e. 748 359 333 and now 789

Not really. A340-600, A340-300, A380-800, 747-400 will go at Lufthansa, 777-200 and 767-300 at Austrian, MD11F at Lufthansa Cargo. In a few years time, it will be down to 777, 787-9, 747-8, A350-900 and A330-300 across all airlines of the group.

With the big European groups IAG, AFKL, LH Group you don't see the same level of cost savings from group fleet simplification as in the U.S. 787s at LH/OS/LX means three different liveries and three different pilot groups, for example, and the costs from integer constraints. They get some purchasing efficiencies in frames and parts but miss out on labor.

vfw614 wrote:

- expects demand in 2024 to be at 90 per cent of pre-Corona level, but business not to recover to pre Corona levels (currently 30 per cent of all pax are business customers, Lufthansa expects 10-20 per cent of those 30 per cent not to return)

Talking about burying bad news... one third to two-thirds of all business travel to not return? Wow. So much for the coronavirus deniers saying it'd all be OK. That percent is even bigger in terms of revenue. It's "odd" that LH would express this in terms of percent passengers rather than percent revenue, unless the goal is to downplay what is some pretty dire news for the group and for the industry.

EDIT: maybe some confusion on number of pax vs number of companies?

Slides are at https://slidesync.com/EGvgMdJAXQ?locale=en -- in German of course.

Maybe a German speaker can find the quote and translate?

behramjee wrote:

this part interested me the most and am happy to see LH take this decision though it does further increase LH's own WB fleet mix i.e. 748 359 333 and now 789

The big loser is A330neo, it is nowhere in the picture, and the "diversity" leaves little room for it to enter.

EDIT: Some news on A380 from @SpaethFlies on Twitter:

CEO Carsten Spohr of @lufthansa just said "we have permanently decomissioned" #A380, while the chart says "long term storage".

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 0635498497

It's pretty clear they aren't coming back, barring a miracle.

Talking about burying bad news... one third to two-thirds of all business travel to not return? Wow. So much for the coronavirus deniers saying it'd all be OK. That percent is even bigger in terms of revenue. It's "odd" that LH would express this in terms of percent passengers rather than percent revenue, unless the goal is to downplay what is some pretty dire news for the group and for the industry.

No, he said business passengers make up 30 per cent of the passenger mix and of those 30 per cent, he expects 10 to 20 per cent not to return. Which means business passengers making up 24-27 per cent of pax after the crisis, based on pre-covid figures. However, he noted that even before COVID the passenger mix was already shifting towards a larger proportion of non-business travellers

The big loser is A330neo, it is nowhere in the picture, and the "diversity" leaves little room for it to enter.

Why would he talk to journalists about an aircraft Lufthansa has not ordered yet? It would certainly not improve his leverage should it come to negotiations with Airbus. I don't see why the A330-900 should not replace the existing A330-300 fleet. Within the group, we are looking at 30+ aircraft, with the oldest now 17 years old.

EDIT: Some news on A380 from @SpaethFlies on Twitter:

CEO Carsten Spohr of @lufthansa just said "we have permanently decomissioned" #A380, while the chart says "long term storage".

Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 0635498497

It's pretty clear they aren't coming back, barring a miracle.

That's not what Spohr said and @SpaethFlies has corrected his earlier Tweet by quoting what Spohr actually said (see my initial post).

So is "We don't see a return of the #A380 into scheduled service from today's perspective" basically code for "the A380s are 99.99% retired but we can't officially confirm they're 100% gone yet for whatever reason"?

I'd say it is "we are not turning them in coke cans yet and will wait and see". But with the Boeing 747-8 featuring somewhat prominently visually in today's presentation and his talk about 747-8s taking over A380 routes, the way ahead appears rather clear.

If they're all but saying that the A380s are goners, why can't they just outright say "we're retiring the A380s" instead of doing this "we're retiring them but not really" business? Could there be contractual stuff that's preventing them from officially retiring them instead of keeping them in limbo?

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If they're all but saying that the A380s are goners, why can't they just outright say "we're retiring the A380s" instead of doing this "we're retiring them but not really" business? Could there be contractual stuff that's preventing them from officially retiring them instead of keeping them in limbo?

Because despite their pessimistic tone, it's not decided and they want to hit bottom of the curve now. They know a number of other carriers are keeping their options open. If the traffic rebound into slot-congested airports is better than expected.... LH could lose market share if they don't have the capacity/slots. Strategic decision.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

So is "We don't see a return of the #A380 into scheduled service from today's perspective" basically code for "the A380s are 99.99% retired but we can't officially confirm they're 100% gone yet for whatever reason"?

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If they're all but saying that the A380s are goners, why can't they just outright say "we're retiring the A380s" instead of doing this "we're retiring them but not really" business? Could there be contractual stuff that's preventing them from officially retiring them instead of keeping them in limbo?

That was the speculation last time when we had the announcement that A380 was no longer a part of fleet planning, that there was a benefit to management with respect to labor to not say the A380 was 100.0% retired. I suppose it means that 748 pilots can't demand more pay because they now operate the biggest plane in the group.

vfw614 wrote:

No, he said business passengers make up 30 per cent of the passenger mix and of those 30 per cent, he expects 10 to 20 per cent not to return. Which means business passengers making up 24-27 per cent of pax after the crisis, based on pre-covid figures. However, he noted that even before COVID the passenger mix was already shifting towards a larger proportion of non-business travellers

Interesting. As I said I found the quote to be surprising, so this interpretation makes more sense. I think he's being somewhat optimistic. From talking to friends it seems everyone is pessimistic on business travel even after recovery. The projections I see is a 30 percent hit moving forward rather than the 10-20 percent hit he uses, thus it wasn't surprising for me to see a one-third hit to projections, but of course two-thirds was.

vfw614 wrote:

Why would he talk to journalists about an aircraft Lufthansa has not ordered yet? It would certainly not improve his leverage should it come to negotiations with Airbus. I don't see why the A330-900 should not replace the existing A330-300 fleet. Within the group, we are looking at 30+ aircraft, with the oldest now 17 years old.

It literally is not in the pictures he showed, and 787 now is in the LH part of the portfolio, and the overall message is fleet simplification. To me this is significant. I don't see why 789 should not replace A333 in LH's fleet. As you suggest it will be an interesting negotiation and both vendors will have a lot at stake.

vfw614 wrote:

That's not what Spohr said and @SpaethFlies has corrected his earlier Tweet by quoting what Spohr actually said (see my initial post).

Ok, yet I just went to his twitter page and the old quote has not been deleted and I don't see any comment correcting it. If you have a direct link to the correction that would be appreciated.

Revelation wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

That's not what Spohr said and @SpaethFlies has corrected his earlier Tweet by quoting what Spohr actually said (see my initial post).

Ok, yet I just went to his twitter page and the old quote has not been deleted and I don't see any comment correcting it. If you have a direct link to the correction that would be appreciated.

Here you go: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 20262?s=20

He has not deleted the earlier post (which he probably should have).

vfw614 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

That's not what Spohr said and @SpaethFlies has corrected his earlier Tweet by quoting what Spohr actually said (see my initial post).

Ok, yet I just went to his twitter page and the old quote has not been deleted and I don't see any comment correcting it. If you have a direct link to the correction that would be appreciated.

Here you go: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 20262?s=20

He has not deleted the earlier post (which he probably should have).

Thank you, yet how do we know both quotes are not true?

CEO Carsten Spohr of @lufthansa just said "we have permanently decomissioned" #A380, while the chart says "long term storage".

BREAKING @lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr confirms: "We don't see a return of the #A380 into scheduled service from today's perspective" #avgeek

Seems they could both be true, permanent decommissioning because they do not see a need to return A380 to service.

Are you saying this because you listened to the conference?

The slide is pretty clear, big X for both A380 and 744:


Ref: https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 5071282179

Are you saying this because you listened to the conference?

Yes, I did. Maybe I missed the other quote which must have been around 40min into the press conference, based on the time of the Tweet.

The quote I reported was the answer by Carsten Spohr to an explicit question by a journalist later during the press conference.

"Permanent decommissioning" is not really a crystal-clear term. It could simply mean "no plans to return them to service at this point" and moving them from active storage to deep storage.

vfw614 wrote:

Are you saying this because you listened to the conference?

Yes, I did. Maybe I missed the other quote which must have been around 40min into the press conference, based on the time of the Tweet.

The quote I reported was the answer by Carsten Spohr to an explicit question by a journalist later during the press conference.

"Permanent decommissioning" is not really a crystal-clear term. It could simply mean "no plans to return them to service at this point" and moving them from active storage to deep storage.

If it was “at this point” you wouldn’t use the word permanent. Permanent is not very subjective unfortunately

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

The 748 has better engines than the A346 (both in terms of fuel burn and mx). That’s why it’s getting a stay of execution.

My guess is that they did not use the term of permanently removal of A380 fleet is due to reporting and accounting procurement.

If they say today in clear terms that A380 fleet is to be retired, LH group will have to write off the entire fleet in order to satisfy the regulators.

But they can't say they are not to decommissioning the fleet as obviously they may not return, otherwise it is misleading investors.

So the best approach is to tell the audience they don't think there is a future for the fleet but they are not officially retired (so that it is still in the books).

It is all technical to avoid accounting fraud accusations and misleading investors accusations. It is better to keep options open while communicating clearly on their intentions.

Less Lufthansa planes & routes around, more space for much better carriers such as Turkish Airlines & the ME3+.

chonetsao wrote:

My guess is that they did not use the term of permanently removal of A380 fleet is due to reporting and accounting procurement.

To me the interesting thing is Spaeth is a professional, experienced journalist as opposed to a newbie blogger, he has not deleted the tweet, and he absolutely used quotation marks in his tweet. If this was not a direct quote he is making the kind of mistake I would think an experienced journalist would never make.

chonetsao wrote:

If they say today in clear terms that A380 fleet is to be retired, LH group will have to write off the entire fleet in order to satisfy the regulators.

But they can't say they are not to decommissioning the fleet as obviously they may not return, otherwise it is misleading investors.

So the best approach is to tell the audience they don't think there is a future for the fleet but they are not officially retired (so that it is still in the books).

It is all technical to avoid accounting fraud accusations and misleading investors accusations. It is better to keep options open while communicating clearly on their intentions.

Agree, "decommissioning" leaves open the tiny possibility of "recommissioning" but this suggests it would be very expensive and thus unlikely.

fil87 wrote:

Less Lufthansa planes & routes around, more space for much better carriers such as Turkish Airlines & the ME3+.

You have a point. Having flown TK and EK, both are excellent.

TK will give a great competition to all in Europe and ME. Plus they do not fly the A380

Might as well plug Spaeth some more, he has an interview in English with BBC starting around 2:00 in the following audio:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172xlw5gn4fn8f

The BBC guy wants to make it look like the DE government is going to force green measures on LH, whereas Spaeth points out LH did not use up all that much of the government funding and is eager to pay it back for obvious reasons. He did a good job pushing back, IMO.

chonetsao wrote:

My guess is that they did not use the term of permanently removal of A380 fleet is due to reporting and accounting procurement.

If they say today in clear terms that A380 fleet is to be retired, LH group will have to write off the entire fleet in order to satisfy the regulators.

But they can't say they are not to decommissioning the fleet as obviously they may not return, otherwise it is misleading investors.

So the best approach is to tell the audience they don't think there is a future for the fleet but they are not officially retired (so that it is still in the books).

It is all technical to avoid accounting fraud accusations and misleading investors accusations. It is better to keep options open while communicating clearly on their intentions.

Agree.

And there is a need to placate Boeing in respect to the 779 accommodation recently granted.

Revelation wrote:

To me the interesting thing is Spaeth is a professional, experienced journalist as opposed to a newbie blogger, he has not deleted the tweet, and he absolutely used quotation marks in his tweet. If this was not a direct quote he is making the kind of mistake I would think an experienced journalist would never make.

I tried to locate a webcast of the press conference to check, but it seems Lufthansa has not made it available.

FWIW, German media all report the line "from today's perspective we don't expect the A380 to return to our fleet".

filipinoavgeek wrote:

So is "We don't see a return of the #A380 into scheduled service from today's perspective" basically code for "the A380s are 99.99% retired but we can't officially confirm they're 100% gone yet for whatever reason"?

Or equally your 'code' for merely guessing as opposed to what he actually said. I never see the point in changing something to 'this is actually what xxxxx meant' when, quite frankly, you have no idea what was meant other than what was said.

Lufthansa will need the new business class to be stellar if it really wants to position itself as a "premium" airline, as right now, it is decidedly "meh" at best, and the business class product is nothing amazing and a very long way from matching Swiss in quality and service.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

Antarius wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

Huh? There are probably more 747-8s in service worldwide than A340-600s yes, with 141 748s built (not sure how many 346's were built) so if you mean by spare part sourcing and maintenance then perhaps that is a factor in the decision to keep them vs. the 346s but not sure what economies of scale has to do with this. The A340-600 was designed and built as a replacement aircraft for early model 747s and went out of production in 2011. It is the 747s engines that make it the efficient enough hauler that it is vs the 346 and that was likely key to the decision.

I wonder how long the A343s have left until they are retired

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Antarius wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

Huh? There are probably more 747-8s in service worldwide than A340-600s yes, with 141 748s built (not sure how many 346's were built) so if you mean by spare part sourcing and maintenance then perhaps that is a factor in the decision to keep them vs. the 346s but not sure what economies of scale has to do with this. The A340-600 was designed and built as a replacement aircraft for early model 747s and went out of production in 2011. It is the 747s engines that make it the efficient enough hauler that it is vs the 346 and that was likely key to the decision.

I'm not disputing that the 748 is more efficient. I'm saying that in addition to it, more aircraft worldwide make spare part availability and cost better due to economy of scale. Being the only major a346 operator has complications.

The 747-8 has been modernized over a dated A340-600. It is not just the engines, the control systems are more advanced than the A340-600. A recent wind tunnel versus a two decade wind tunnel makes a significant performance difference. If there is a need for one more LH can certainly go to the dessert and pick up the flight test frame for a song.

Antarius wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I am surprised that the A346 can’t remain with larger premium cabins alongside the B748 fleet. Ending B744 and A388 operations makes sense:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

The economies of scale come from the fact that the 747-8 shares the GENx engine with a large fleet of 787 aircraft, a model that is still in production and will be for years to come, whereas the Trent-500 was developed uniquely for the A340-500/600 and is a niche product for a disappearingly small fleet. It's the engine maintenance on the A340-600 that is really expensive.

DUSdude wrote:

Antarius wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The 747-8i is a much more efficient 4 engined aircraft that the A340-600s and there are fewer of them in the fleet (19 vs 24 frames including parked) and that's likely part of the decision. Agree with you that retiring the 747-400 fleet and the A380 makes a lot of sense at this point.

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

The economies of scale come from the fact that the 747-8 shares the GENx engine with a large fleet of 787 aircraft, a model that is still in production and will be for years to come, whereas the Trent-500 was developed uniquely for the A340-500/600 and is a niche product for a disappearingly small fleet. It's the engine maintenance on the A340-600 that is really expensive.

Interesting you mention that. Has LH selected an engine yet for its 787 order?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DUSdude wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

The economies of scale come from the fact that the 747-8 shares the GENx engine with a large fleet of 787 aircraft, a model that is still in production and will be for years to come, whereas the Trent-500 was developed uniquely for the A340-500/600 and is a niche product for a disappearingly small fleet. It's the engine maintenance on the A340-600 that is really expensive.

Interesting you mention that. Has LH selected an engine yet for its 787 order?

LH seems to lean towards RR whenever they have a choice (A333 and A380), plus the A346 and A359 which only have RR engines. Yet to be seen how RR's screwups will affect it, but could easily see a switch to GE.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DUSdude wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There are also more 747-8s out there than a346s (including Freight). This gives better economy of scale as well.

The economies of scale come from the fact that the 747-8 shares the GENx engine with a large fleet of 787 aircraft, a model that is still in production and will be for years to come, whereas the Trent-500 was developed uniquely for the A340-500/600 and is a niche product for a disappearingly small fleet. It's the engine maintenance on the A340-600 that is really expensive.

Interesting you mention that. Has LH selected an engine yet for its 787 order?

Rolls Royce Trent 1000s for their 787s.

https://zenoot.com/rolls-royce-secures- ... -contract/

No surprise. LH and RR have some engine maintenance joint venture N3.

Why do we again talk about the A330NEO, LH has been very consistent in not considering it suitable for their needs. And as they seem to intend on keeping the A350s orders, there is no pressure to exchange for something smaller.

Thought they would go with GE because of their 747-8 fleet.

columba wrote:

Thought they would go with GE because of their 747-8 fleet.

The thing is the RR and LH maintenance collaboration will last way longer than the 747-8. It has survived the chop this time, but it will be the go to chop the next time the fleet will be reviewed.

FluidFlow wrote:

columba wrote:

Thought they would go with GE because of their 747-8 fleet.

The thing is the RR and LH maintenance collaboration will last way longer than the 747-8. It has survived the chop this time, but it will be the go to chop the next time the fleet will be reviewed.

They weren't compelled to order RR on their 787s, were they? Or does it specifically state that LH must order RR engines where available??

They are free to pick what they want. But with A380 and A340-600 retired early there could be some internal pressure to increase RR business from other fleets.

mxaxai wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

How on earth does that go hand-in-hand with the decision to introduce decidedly non-premium BoB on Lufthansa and Swiss, starting this month?

Per LH / LX press releases, this change is supposed to improve the on-board experience by letting you choose rather than serving something you don't like.

The premium aspect of LH and LX is that you'll get a bottle of water for free, while you'll have to pay for it on OS and SN.

This really is corporate BS at its greatest best.
Manure.
OMG!!! a fu%%ing bottle of water!!!!!!

seahawk wrote:

Why do we again talk about the A330NEO, LH has been very consistent in not considering it suitable for their needs. And as they seem to intend on keeping the A350s orders, there is no pressure to exchange for something smaller.

A bit of a contradiction, no?? Spohr says he wants to downsize, why wouldn't the A330NEO be in the mix?